Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Thu, 14 May 2015 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 014341A1C02 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2015 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 Ff9eDCDXO2Ej for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E1DF1A1B5C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacwv17 with SMTP id wv17so89208469pac.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=v5OuGk45L4PNWfvnDEka8rOtmVK3MnNAEdIgjeYlm14=; b=NgOLd4DaB3YwppS2Qm3qj4VJzJkAlQsZLB01cdQ7anF88j/tPJUMtgHX0r1YoshC/v lLKpT4pid/j+ArctDDy3pWTcvOkadfeWO9cOK4GDcxjK453j+HedChDBurXS0R19Ls8U 23KVmlRygJ0k0bMCzxnibHs2gO4dkZ79Sc1RdWIip66wOkDI1X6MRLf3QGCJh0+diGv+ ny4n5BHr1Fau13cwtMAmVkYoDxL3c2Si/rlkGu7KRmdGKNZoj4gEH2NuJVlqaB0z0CMw kJTJlQAM+4qJ2GqkGP1UrUYcI3/RQ6Mb15hjiYHkl+v/Qi3sAslPYRV9bOXd+m/trx+p d6JQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOT0YU8h7BgY2n8fuAKJf0OvAAXPzqZ9xd+d4ox3nvEFk+rH3+BYJXfI9UnxgzOPeMR5rM
X-Received: by 10.70.140.108 with SMTP id rf12mr9056552pdb.140.1431616898794; Thu, 14 May 2015 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.5] (c-50-184-24-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.184.24.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id de4sm22677408pbb.95.2015.05.14.08.21.37 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 May 2015 08:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EDD2F931-BF7E-4C9F-8E4B-52639248D587"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <0EE18E9E-E7D2-42E3-AEE8-9A43C4032120@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 08:21:33 -0700
Message-Id: <6AA67FEA-4C81-4259-A14F-471D8984D21A@virtualized.org>
References: <20150513205135.14395.qmail@ary.lan> <7AD02DF7-45A5-42CE-AAE2-50CCAE3B6A4F@virtualized.org> <0EC766DD-E56D-4E6F-80D7-8B26BC87A528@INTERISLE.NET> <5E25D193-A5A4-46FC-A724-A4125585CAD8@virtualized.org> <0EE18E9E-E7D2-42E3-AEE8-9A43C4032120@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VFJU3PeRrZCH12WNUWaosCAuNSc>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material
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: Thu, 14 May 2015 15:21:42 -0000

Ted,

> On May 14, 2015, at 1:03 AM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>> What qualitative difference do you see between those uses of numbers and the use of TLDs like CORP?
> 
> Lack of scarcity.

Sorry, I don't understand this response in the context of whether or not the folks making use of the space "owns, rents, or otherwise has lawful permission to use" for that space (be it number space or name space).

In the context of names, sure, there are a 37^63 (+/- a few) possible TLDs, yet we see the huge spikes of traffic for CORP/HOME/MAIL at the root, so it would seem blatantly obvious that there is scarcity, albeit perhaps in imagination if not the actual resource.

However, as I said, how it is labeled is somewhat irrelevant. What matters to me is figuring out the objective criteria by which we can determine whether and/or how a particular label is being used so much that its delegation in the DNS would damage the Internet's security/stability.  So far, all the criteria I've seen to date boils down to Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" which makes me uncomfortable.

Regards,
-drc