Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry

Philip Homburg <> Fri, 23 September 2016 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF2D12B5C0 for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uDquLjZnMaAR for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d16a:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DDD412B293 for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1bnQ2x-0000HzC; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:57:43 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: dnsop <>
From: Philip Homburg <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:15:29 +0000 ." <>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:57:42 +0200
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Edward Lewis <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:08:42 -0000

>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