Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

George Michaelson <> Tue, 04 April 2017 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9102D129549 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WiKcesWyEvpH for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30655129542 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d188so159114099vka.0 for <>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jDijzotYNfjgcmjtPbla9kH+mY7lt6z1gvVmuvuN5TY=; b=LoIMlYkr0zVIrmNW0pnNKeW53WIhYKDPFZen87xw9O5zuIzsSYIIVaFsV35ZC3SNAR 8gtYOSOaRSVoyaBmmVRz7lbpujeAH70gvIGRiViwWoiJgCmIgBiL5X0rYVjCCLL1Xwo1 rNZehLo8EFX3juDKCXtOqFXz20gNRALsYBpUg1Fea5fn7v1JcMpkh7Hq/7drliEPK7kF wIL1txZWoAEYhpvAbgonb+egcnYg0udCi0cvUECLwtX88dq0po1ccZ/1oa1QRrt6xJbJ 695c2YtW5i47L+y57OfUPcbi8nzu73bEQdRN+3C4ZiAfqCSclc67yrgIZPctzKlRpre6 F67Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jDijzotYNfjgcmjtPbla9kH+mY7lt6z1gvVmuvuN5TY=; b=rm7Cn40xwP8zxSv85LF67OlvT5uu0pI1mYYtDBp83r2TUcQyD+Zvk/W5jJjCpHuZ4R lqMajtNqO4tC8p4UssWmIt2DvRpdmvyHz9jJ+MzyJ7XzQ8AEqwl+tzfowCEU7LeEfkqM fy/QyzVr0JmVevCUsxjyu9NQW4tq2F+UfnHI9EFJGkQOfEPpV9ICUMF8YWjWjELNYr5V DXijDSWNpdGP8coyCNm3Ngk+Ci9iY7aoUGLTyteRxxm2zYuO5qJgHHD5GMUs2fwnEdQ+ O1is4Zd34gELjW76fTG7s2kV5R1v9vFC7EV1PbSiCrsUg1N1ERDPQLeGhPu270MXCZ3l ZQ3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1xH+7NkjCYirQ2Yr1gGSb4A2ziiJXuyr5F1IKk+k+XkkvtDmdciw+VLC8+y7oExWxU/ITb8vDWOz28tw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p19mr8941938uaa.35.1491273430989; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:465:201f:394f:6f28]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:37:10 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian Dickson <>
Cc: " WG" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 02:37:14 -0000

I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question:
Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft
going to LC if that draft didn't say it?

If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some sense: in or
not in a registry; passed or not passed into the DNS; delegated or not
delegated via ICANN; would you reference the IAB document? If not, why


On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Brian Dickson
<> wrote:
> In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson,
> I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the
> IAB statement.
> My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three possibilities
> for a special name.
> The first is, a special but needs DNS resolution. This is one case the IAB
> says, "register it and put it in DNS under arpa". (I don't think that is
> controversial at all, and a wise recommendation.)
> The second is, a Very Special, but does not belong in DNS.  (IAB second
> option.)
> The third is, a Not Very Special, and not in DNS. Not registered, FCFS. Not
> covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO not
> conflicting with the IAB statement.
> Very Special: It gets its entry in the registry in order to establish its
> uniqueness, but isn't in DNS, so no entry under arpa. This avoids the
> possibility of multiple mechanisms for interception fighting with each
> other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and also
> in-scope for the IAB statement.
> Not Very Special: whoever wants the name, is reasonably sure it won't be
> exposed outside of a closed environment (e.g. a single application), and
> doesn't want or need to go through the 6761 process to get the name
> registered.
> Not Very Special is basically 6761 without the registry, in a first-come,
> first-served, no guarantees kind of way.
> The "onion" thing showed the need for some way of avoiding TLDs, avoiding
> conflicting names, and avoiding heavy process, IMHO. And I think "alt" is
> the right answer.
> Also IMHO, making it "" would be very confusing; I think any time
> someone sees "arpa" as the TLD, they should believe it exists in the DNS.
> Having "alt" be the parent name here, and not be in the DNS, keeps things
> clear even to non-DNS folks.
> And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that kind-of
> are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be something
> where "" would make sense. But given the relative ease in adding
> things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating non-registered
> FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa.
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list