Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 04 February 2017 02:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A3E1294C6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:40:38 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 7MREUn3-2Pxx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (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 CE2D6129495 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id s140so9025289qke.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:40:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=xKm5a1vLNkTMYkz3zXpE/FbdUjL4fYSqEA9vDmbM/b0=; b=bz/Q8Sxz06RX88h4hOG0Os2RyUZk0EjgkLOgCLW+41zKPOn4LBhRL+C4oqWXky0SLE v9X9p1lcPYsB2IKkYGnfOflvCPAb7rOzI8oN4yrX7loKeAEh0Oby0fJ0Xz1Y7g+Ewh0j EopMQlaNgR5UQAwgsG4/CY1q0XEM5An1AcrnUMnL4QcDfTV2NrNXIr+v+FJE/+ozKhuZ PeKVQm8NHCgCwbXUljuafzhwfz+2bdHrOtx9UcxoClGSKcVflvGbFqoTb3WTKi3Ydc6v jOfQOCkPGoUgzS9eyv7W6cWysUue/JMOrMFgznqpZSMJjLSX/JsfQtjBRSRnaIM9B2HG a8OA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=xKm5a1vLNkTMYkz3zXpE/FbdUjL4fYSqEA9vDmbM/b0=; b=kKR182O+RaRJxMu403e9biOKhAViGOQE2xub9hlRb5hqNkYMgxWMxPqUe1CuxnxiDZ Cw6c4QIhlurZT+hl+SNRZxRriZIbmkEnCSKR5h0ZPvd/MDNu5/BKCkN6wtdZiqzuCQbq BslBdM9f/73TTVUEg5BVX0OizSFq+mpHCCFPb9GypSpYasuNmTO+yQa3PzZf2Yhly6TB OAhPDYn50rvgNQRXWTDVeDkslG/Ce9EMkkhDJ6PpLqOLKQcB6xMzP5SAO3l8V7quUnem ckFLqVX3ASYC6FvnrrbJcCPW66turgAqHO4gspvZGvaStfeX5W++e6h79ufp6PsfMVW8 hrfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nHdwkbMEz/zanYLKc5uvVC+N2wsbogcMmJbi272cyNKqk39bOwcSbqPCR9qCssRw==
X-Received: by 10.55.154.204 with SMTP id c195mr121675qke.293.1486176035599; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:40:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.229] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b16sm26245594qka.9.2017.02.03.18.40.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:40:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <88686BFE-7874-4EB4-8E04-FF68DFB51F94@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_95F6D11E-900F-4A32-AF49-57EF2CB4397E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:40:32 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20170204021009.GE67739@mx2.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <CAH1iCiqXohb_7LsQ2EMo8ZB-t20mKq_nUDS8vebhtSXoM13DTg@mail.gmail.com> <20170203210922.7286C618213C@rock.dv.isc.org> <9B6211A9-20B5-4B15-A8FD-A1390DAD76AE@fugue.com> <20170203224708.A0EE061891C7@rock.dv.isc.org> <5EAC5DDC-7B93-40B5-B28D-150DAABE4BAC@fugue.com> <20170204021009.GE67739@mx2.yitter.info>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Wwkkvea9_RAoJ804LnOMmrXbZFw>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 02:40:38 -0000

On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> My memory is that only after that
> did we start thinking of a sort of 1918-style part of the DNS as
> well.  That may have been a mistake, since as this discussion is
> showing the properties of an in-protocol, in-DNS namespace without
> delegations are somewhat different to alternative-protocol uses that
> do not rely on the DNS at all.

I think that we've seen a number of questions go by that lead to the conclusion that it makes sense to have two hierarchies: one for experimental non-DNS queries, and one for locally served zones.   I don't know if we _need_ the .LSZ (or whatever) SUTLDN, but if we need to be able to have a special-use top-level domain name that has an un-signed delegation, it probably ought to be different than the SUTLDN that is used for non-DNS stuff, so that both names can have the appropriate configuration in the root zone.