Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the disc
>ussions on the topic.  Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a reflection th
>at the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic.  That is not an insu
>lt because there's a significant difference between the function of registratio
>n (of anything) and the function of the DNS system.  Those two topics are often
> confused and I think that is happening again.
>
>If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period and th
>e consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it is understa
>ndable.  Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the roster of other
> work represents "time better spent" means that this work could be pushed off t
>he table.  However, the discussion ought to be resumed somewhere else.  I think
> that the Special Use Domain Name registry is needed but as it is currently def
>ined, inadequate.

I think draft-tldr-sutld-ps describes only the tip of an iceberg:
  o  There is strong resistance within the IETF to assigning names to
      things outside of the DNS, for a variety of reasons:

      *  Requires a mechanism for identifying which of a set of
         resolution processes is required in order to resolve a
         particular name.

[...]

      *  The semantics of alternative resolution protocols may differ
         from the DNS protocol; DNS has the concept of RRtypes; other
         protocols may not support RRtypes, or may support some entirely
         different data structuring mechanism.

We have no architecture how to deal with radically different naming systems 
that share a single name space.

Certainly .onion uses completely different concepts than are used in DNS.

This is a technical question that in my opinion the IETF should address.

One extreme is to have no technical requirements. Anything that can benefit 
from a piece of the global name space can apply.

The other extreme would be to require that such a system is on the outside
similar to DNS, i.e. support the equivalent of AAAA, MX, etc. lookups.

For example, is .onion as described in RFC 7686 from a technical point of
view what we want or not. 

If the outcome of such a discussion would be to have no technical requirements
on alternative naming systems, then it makes more sense to have the name
community create a policy for such registrations and limit IETF activity to
specifications that are strongly interconnected with internet standards,
such as .ipv4only.arpa