Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 04 February 2014 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657851A0341 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:50:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eD7ASGmE25Uv for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716241A02F5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (c-75-69-155-67.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [75.69.155.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C87588A031 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 01:50:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:50:27 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140204015026.GC53095@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6BE00F1A-1F8D-4B30-A5C7-10E7466109C2@vpnc.org> <ACF06352-98E5-4368-A8C9-5AB50783C2D3@hopcount.ca> <20140203212333.1259EE44493@rock.dv.isc.org> <CF15D98C.197C0B%jonne.soininen@renesasmobile.com> <CAKr6gn1dpWz3LP9bpA2JebRDSN7GeOW65+Q1tW_dv=9KzgZaCQ@mail.gmail.com> <A6D7CE2E-BF9C-4077-A571-0C455E5DAE1F@nominum.com> <CAKr6gn08xayJCK_GtGNeYbet6tD=GwPJoSYL3tbRXomfxckHWA@mail.gmail.com> <ED2AE016-766D-41DE-A428-DEC49A350E8C@nominum.com> <20140204012148.GE16180@mx1.yitter.info> <1397C673-86CD-40A1-9055-17B3B74FAC80@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1397C673-86CD-40A1-9055-17B3B74FAC80@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 01:50:33 -0000

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:32:04PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:

> This is the "you didn't follow process" argument.  But they couldn't
> have followed process—there was no realistic process for allocating
> a special-use TLD before 6761 was published.  So this amounts to an
> emotional appeal, which isn't much of a justification for the change
> you are demanding of them.

The DNS works -- has _always worked_ -- on the principle that you
register your names if you want to use them on the Internet.  This is
just as true of top level names as of anything else.  It is true that
when .onion (to stick to our example) was adopted, there wasn't a
mechanism other than going to ICANN to get a TLD.  (There certainly
was a mechanism via the ICANN route at the time.)  I'm not sure how to
interpret this part of your argument except, "If the mechanism for
what you want to do doesn't exist or is too inconvenient, just do
whatever you want."  That has interesting implications for the IANA
function.

Moreover, 6761 is _perfectly clear_ that you're supposed to show that
your use actually requires a TLD.  I still don't see why .onion.arpa
would've been a bad choice.  Failing to answer that question really
_would_ be not following the process.

Finally, mine at least is not just an emotional argument; see above,
variations of which I have repeated.  Indeed, whether you intend it or
not, your mails appear to me to be rather emotionally charged and
dismissive of any pointy question or suggestion that the interests of
the rest of the DNS (including the root management regime) need to be
taken into consideration as well.  It seems to me that you could read
with a more generous application of the principle of charity.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com