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

Bob Harold <> Fri, 09 August 2019 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42C81200E6 for <>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 MNSCKiOr5SeQ for <>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31D1912007C for <>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p17so92960037ljg.1 for <>; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NniJQgz5W+OUe816W8bxPqhsB7rzfeAFTQ1rzefTIuk=; b=OVm6/pZpYedEr0sLpmAbUV4eQU/SbwGHgRm/WJKRRqcHfSpoPjD40KKaYw1+61JvnQ NZib1pjZG9agQhbrOWY0/2HPlSUrPUDxj6QD8JP1ozee4TSN06RcbxBHyn8Jbrnq5sOQ M1ZZYGt0/iQaSxXdaU7EvnC7nLk1nYONEjA+C8urn/q0PFUr2V1SjAIYvQcnoskC1d0V CQquvaBjHvwuM1Xdlaoog5m3fjc4f4WpdGl4HIrvaeQ3kLUejRCJhe4bGRCZocdVy2q7 zqYlocbawvrwl20TvZ4cDRyoK3XToTrEc5bZT9u0UGU8Ys4Fr3D2Hq92hriSKyENNtBk EqvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NniJQgz5W+OUe816W8bxPqhsB7rzfeAFTQ1rzefTIuk=; b=fDM8s7sdPMlcpxaXI0qdveKxC6mFXiaIAUdmTFkcuB1cPFrij76sm6vKu9V3gTcygj YQSeUQIAR0YgwX5572zuWuGC4frxWqvqOGcxpbhF5l03Jbig4B5XEMXSDdyHiLKL6na6 uHPk5biCIQzBjJDEULYFcBxHlexw6ZgOXLyklmP3IINvwNYg+15s5NAo4BReEwa5gajr tKcK1f1bY7jU8ZnzhKP69kmzNOJmKxzIQMMgOh0bSA7BMuTeXqOPAsGIvVqOsNYj2Oak jygqcFxdDSgS9Ia3KoM6/ThA090Tz8SDnB6WH9Fp7utUOAX1XxTDRCLX2C96j6/QocfH iq/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVNrfQntnuYyxDFEVmp6H1LD2yacz5X9f77YAQe2UCm5G9xkbg3 BfzXxhH/EVLzYKqra+GwsB7BBEpsZoCxqLoVc3Vx9iHn
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz6I/BebigDtbop8HC4i8x0AU6KcuSuNl0j3jlqyCROjHwvXYV7S28G1/S3P8Akjb4K5aLNA0JDCSxIqneJhj4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:98d7:: with SMTP id s23mr2162063ljj.179.1565375176161; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Bob Harold <>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:26:04 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Warren Kumari <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050d1fb058fb34f4a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 18:26:22 -0000

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Warren Kumari <> 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 -
> :
> "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 ''" which says to use
> instead of .home.
> This was helped by the IAB statement -
> 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"
> (
> 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