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

Stuart Cheshire <> Wed, 29 January 2014 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04871A0366 for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:41:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.437
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1iuqaiC6Wpzh for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6D71A0236 for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:41:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Received: from ([]) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 ( 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <> for; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:41:33 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807166-b7f0b6d00000380b-5d-52e8786d3371
Received: from koseret ( []) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id D6.8E.14347.D6878E25; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 ( 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:41:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Stuart Cheshire <>
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:41:31 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OXTe34kWQwb7nYhZ331xmcWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxvGVDSwFD4QrLj+/x9jA+J6/i5GTQ0LAROLTkfMsELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hARamCR2v7wB5cxhkri/uJO9i5GDg1lAT+L+RS2QBl4gc+O82cwgtrBArsS03mVs IDabgJbEi89XwGxOARuJeQv+gtWwCKhKbL8+AyzOLKAhcfzKGXYIW1viybsLrBAzbSRebXzI ArH3JqPE6jWHGUESIkANFx7uALtBQkBWYv7p0gmMArMQLpqF5KJZSKYuYGRexShQlJqTWGmh l1hQkJOql5yfu4kRFHYNhWk7GJuWWx1iFOBgVOLhXXHxeZAQa2JZcWXuIUYJDmYlEd7pki+C hHhTEiurUovy44tKc1KLDzFKc7AoifM6PHsWJCSQnliSmp2aWpBaBJNl4uCUamDsv/Zt7p0G vWqbu6kndv5azX4nU6TsoKJxZ69o+6xXXlJfuYQVbgvtyq10SlcwlDEvvvXsyuf+T3vmdn/a Hrinmovp8HxfqyNVPzT7b/aapq3UsZnSXrB53VKHPYpiS4/pcSbks+SkCJebz/7zhPXVh5Vu 6hPXacgJXVlys8hvb9Yitidyk3qVWIozEg21mIuKEwH7+v86NwIAAA==
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:41:38 -0000

On 28 Jan, 2014, at 07:52, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> It does, but it doesn't call it out very well. It the middle of section 3, it says that the list is “names that may not be used for top-level domains".

That doesn’t describe what the labels are used for. It describes what they may *not* be used for. What they *are* used for remains unspecified.

If the user types “” into their web browser, the name should *not* be resolved in the global DNS. I get that. But what *should* happen with that name? Should it result in NXDOMAIN, like “www.invalid”? Should it result in like “localhost” does? Resolved via mDNS, like “www.local”? Something else? I have no idea. If it’s the same as one of the other existing special-use TLDs, then an argument needs to be made as to why we need another reserved special-use TLD that duplicates the functionality of an existing one. These names are not supposed to be vanity names. The special-use names are there to trigger special behavior by software, and as such we probably don’t need more than one way to trigger each particular special behavior.

The current use of various de facto reserved names like “.onion” results from there being no formal IETF mechanism for documenting and discussing such uses.

The goal of RFC 6761 was to remedy this omission, and give people who feel they need such names a process to apply for such names and initiate discussion about whether such use is appropriate. That way the IETF community can be involved with these decisions about how names are used, instead of it happening outside the IETF with no IETF scrutiny or input.

I think it would be fairly easy to produce a draft documenting what “.onion” is for, how it works, and why resolving those names via the conventional DNS is not appropriate. I’d love to see a draft like that from one of the people who understands the details.

For some of the other names I don’t know what those documents would say. If people in the IETF community do know what those names are used for, having those people write and submit a quick two-page draft describing the usage would be a wonderful contribution to greater IETF understanding of what’s going on. Observing that certain weird names are hitting the root name servers is a useful first step. Understanding *why* that’s happening would be even better.

Stuart Cheshire