Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 15 June 2020 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA71B3A0E52; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqV60NDfW-mM; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2147B3A0E56; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49m5D866VnzMsX; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:12:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1592259144; bh=vGPmsvs6Mphv6h/MK+/owTlvV0vOVa+/byOK+48FRTU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Xft/uppb/NTpxOeoYCS5BUQjgLzoQtic+b9oPufTXexfDPISAvfmrHavbsmAQHdG2 vMCtMigW6yOBOgDMq7InhszywdLgiWqNyNyEcsfFE2xNaP/y+VFujqRxpHnPq0JzVv GUKauEXBd4/F0Llhgd0ovNzVrs7ylNWSBxodjd2Q=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qbu0qGLA5DF5; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:12:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:12:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7D3466029B99; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:12:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7312966B7C; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:12:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:12:22 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20339DD6-6ED5-4977-A307-7497BA786C67@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.22.394.2006151801230.25406@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+F=JA6fogcy_JGRJaZv=Hq52ozgmY5gmzfPm=1oHcJXKg@mail.gmail.com> <20339DD6-6ED5-4977-A307-7497BA786C67@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/b0ixDgChLaiOGzL-n4nhllz1RBs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 22:12:29 -0000

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

> 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administration
> of ISO 3166 and its use in the ICANN context, and suggests to operators and implementers that the ISO3166 user-assigned 2-letter strings could be
> suitable for local use in domain names. It does not include any IANA actions to update any registry or protocol element. So claims that this draft
> reserves names or attempts to override ICANN policy about “TLDs” seem premature.

In a way, this is even worse. It is "marking" some TLD strings in a
special way, without any official IANA registry or ICANN policy anywhere.

We have already seen discussion on how this could lead to increased root
zone traffic, privacy leaks to public DNS, and the possible requirement
of adding things to AS112.

> 3. When several proposals came to the IETF more or less at once regarding “special use domain names”, which proponents were insisting had to be
> single-label names (“TLDs”), the DNSOP chairs — in consultation with the IAB and IESG — set those proposals aside in hopes of finding a less
> time-consuming, more scalable, and less dramatic way of considering changes to the special use names registry than having an open-ended IETF Last
> Call, since there’s almost no technical guidance in RFC 6761 to determine whether a specific request is useful or even valid. 

This has come up before, and I do feel I need to again correct
this. All but one proposal was set aside. The .onion was given a strange
exception. This came after the WG told the draft authors to split the
single draft into multiple versions for the different TLDs requested,
and so .onion appeared in a separate draft _after_ that instruction.

It seems a bit of rewriting history to now claim "several proposals came
to the IETF more or less at once".

> The chairs are reluctant to spend WG time in this area

I concur. The DNSOP WG is not the proper place to discuss this, based
on the previous handling of Special Use Domains brought to the WG.
Furthermore, those discussions caused the WG quite some delay in handling
actual DNS protocol and operational issues.

Paul