Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 1, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> .onion is used a lot by Tor users, to access "hidden services"
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#Hidden_services>
> It requires special handling (send the name to Tor and not to regular
> DNS) and therefore deserves a registration as special.
> 
> .gnu and .zkey are used in Gnunet
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUnet>, the first one for
> human-readable names and the second-one for cryptographical
> names. GNUnet is probably much less used than Tor but is one of the
> few serious (proper documentation and "running code") and
> comprehensive attempts to reach the objectives of the Vancouver
> meeting ("hardening the Internet").
> 
> [I let .i2p, I have no strong opinion.]

These uses are sufficiently different that I think tying them together makes it unlikely that they could get IETF consensus.   And at the moment the IESG is not feeling sufficient urgency to approve the whole laundry list without the individual proposals being more thoroughly specified.

What you have said here does not make me feel additional urgency.

The IESG doesn't have a position on this document at the moment, although we are aware of it and have discussed it, both internally and with the IAB.   I am personally inclined to be an advocate for reasonable proposals for special TLD allocations; indeed, I took it upon myself to take point on this during the most recent IESG formal telechat.   The conversation that ensued has not lead me to believe that other IESG members are feeling an urgent need to do this allocation as an IESG decision.   I think further work is needed before the IESG is likely to take any action on this particular proposal.

What I would like to see is for the individual, unrelated proposals contained in this proposal to be separated out into their own documents.   Then I would like to see the proposals explained in more detail and, as you propose, discussed either here, on dnsext, and/or on some other appropriate mailing list.   It would be nice to see an upswelling of support for these proposals, so that the IESG doesn't have to go it alone (because we most likely won't).

BTW, what I am saying here is based on my own assessment of conversations that have occurred in the IESG and with the IAB, but neither the IESG nor the IAB has stated any clear position on this in my causal domain, so what I've said here is strictly my (somewhat informed) opinion, not a statement from the IESG or the IAB.