Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

[Bob Harold <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> It's time again for everyone's favorite topic -- Special Use Domain Names!
>
> Back in October 2015 the IETF approved RFC7686 - 'The ".onion"
> Special-Use Domain Name' -- those who were involved no doubt remember
> that it was a really long and frustrating set of discussions, and we
> determined that there is much broken in this process.
>
> To job people's memory, Jari penned a nice summary here -
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/onion/ :
> "Some contention arose during the processing of the document in the
> working group. There also was some discussion about needing to clarify
> or adjust RFC 6761 before making any additions.
> ...
> However, subsequent to this action, the IESG believes RFC 6761 needs
> action, and substantial community input. It needs to be open for
> review and modification because the current process is unscalable.
> Several other names had also been submitted for consideration as
> special names, and the RFC may not give adequate guidance about how
> when names should be identified as special names. Special names should
> also be, as the name implies – special and rare. The DNSOP working
> group is chartered to address this RFC 6761 review."
>
> The IESG tasked DNSOP with providing better guidance on how to handle
> future requests to reserve names under the RFC6761 process[0]. As part
> of that we wrote RFC8244 - "Special-Use Domain Names Problem
> Statement", which "should be considered required reading for IETF
> participants who wish to express an informed opinion on the topic of
> Special-Use Domain Names.".  RFC8244 "presents a list, intended to be
> comprehensive, of the problems that have since been identified", but
> we ran out of steam without actually *solving* the issues.
>
> Later (April 2016) RFC7788 - "Home Networking Control Protocol" was
> published which included "A network-wide  zone is appended to all
> single labels or unqualified zones in order to qualify them. ".home"
> is the default; ..." - this caused much excitement and was updated by
> RFC8375 - "Special-Use Domain 'home.arpa.'" which says to use
> home.arpa instead of .home.
> This was helped by the IAB statement -
>
> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names-in-the-arpa-domain/
>
> This helps, but still doesn't solve many of the issues with RFC6761
> style reservations, and wouldn't have really solved the .onion case if
> it came along now - the IETF, and the IESG would still be in the
> sticky position of how to evaluate if .onion should be placed in the
> SUDN registry.
>
> Suzanne has a document which I'd appreciate review and discussion of
> -- "Guidelines for Use of the Special Use Names Registry"
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stw-6761ext-01).
> As Stephane pointed out, this doesn't solve for issues *outside* the
> IETF, but it does (hopefully) "define guidelines for the IESG and the
> IETF community on the interpretation of RFC 6761 and the use of the
> special use names registry."
>
>
> I know that people are tired of this whole topic, but I'd really
> appreciate some more of your time reviewing and providing feedback on
> this topic; this issue isn't going to go away...
>
> As Suzanne is one chairs, she will not be participating in any of the
> consensus calls, etc - Benno and Tim can handle that (this is obvious,
> but Suzanne asked me to mention it for completeness).
>
>
> W
> [0]: There is lore that the IESG actually halted reservations under
> the 6761 process, but that doesn't seem to be the case, or, if it is,
> I cannot find a reference; if there is anything saying so, can someone
> please send a link?
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf
>
>
I read it.  It seems like a reasonable summary of the issues.

-- 
Bob Harold