Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Tue, 28 January 2014 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087431A019B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:15:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 dvHpFx-P_KaL for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:15:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E430A1A015B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id at1so7092702iec.36 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ylAr2vm8w18lFMPLI/qJmm6RlpUFNcImRbvEgatAVdo=; b=ScwFh8gUDzQdLj/XExqiPlIJvhpB4+wlW+1btafrDvg4ddUkiFJtP0Ldsbm2yW06tt mjB7oIBEpCz238mHq6MRaon/0/5BkVfNZ4Gnbwu7L2+IndrdOXFbH5GXCZCcTdapS8Mo hg53DyDhMKXPy+8BcdUx1Nwsf/VPiSWtfe9Wez23/qiQDGgqS97fVHsRdhSKt8y0AIfu WeJErctExjAIqxnVUudqI2SPw5/3fEfQgG97piZDUeggmKtJKrdUaIYHxdYgsfoTDE0u u85ELDTq45w01ZYokExUXFvpHAXWjmqp0aWQl3n6Ra5qBgosxskAEkJ7a8WApaUy1mR0 7gKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbgrpi3cjsemUbj6hwok8eOeicDSZJbHX7YXwBy2I+AP888KsR312sbu4f9Fj4b0ZjgbyN
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.153.138 with SMTP id la10mr25035491icc.10.1390886103421; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.223.47 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:55f7:4860:9724:5e4d]
In-Reply-To: <2C2D7CBD-98A6-448A-98AD-6E0A1B6B07A1@apple.com>
References: <20140108151128.10496.10303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EF33329A-2895-4714-8DC1-2E103EF484D9@gmail.com> <2C2D7CBD-98A6-448A-98AD-6E0A1B6B07A1@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:15:03 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn1G3D4Z2RyuSqSpgqT0SY986rBBqhNPYxp1XKieKq+OkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d7f41e311c04f100e82a
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:15:08 -0000

I used to get very unhappy when big name IETF attendees would wander into a
room and say "this makes me very uncomfortable" at the mike.

So having said that, and noting I'm nobody special, and certainly not a big
name in IETF, or DNS...

"something about this makes me very uncomfortable"

we are a long way down a path of governance issues in names which makes
reserving a namespace highly politically charged. Look at what .XXX
underwent. Look at the issues around name collisions and potential
interests in names.

I like the aspect that this draft has drawn on observations of what leaks
into the global space, to suggest what might be wise to withhold. thats at
least testable, repeatable.

As to the decisive qualities? I think the IETF could step over a line very
quickly into a place it really doesn't want to be. Inform ICANN? sure. but
decide to formally try and exclude a namespace on technical grounds? Thats
big. That has implications. You'd want to be on remarkably solid ground.

And then theres the future. These are anglo-centric measurements from the
current state. At some future point, one can imagine a language group
embeds a token in name-lookup logic in some domain of activity, and it
winds up hitting the DNS and they come asking for a holdback. Are we tooled
up for that? the I8n side of things.

The jurisdictional qualities around what should or shouldnt be in the DNS
just makes me quake in my boots.

I guess I am going to have to wear come-backs around the "don't over
politicize technology discussions" and "stop trying to have a chilling
effect on a technology discussion" but I have this memory of some very very
cross words being said about .LOCAL a long time ago. and the potential for
value in the real world, and the potential for pain, attempting to reserve
or conserve a label for undoubtedly good technical reasons, in that
context.

BTW, India, Pakistan, South Africa, the Carribean, New Zealand, Australia,
Sri Lanka all understand the word "test" to have a meaning in sports, which
has very high financial value. The assumption the label .TEST has no
financial value in rugby or cricket, when worldwide TV rights negotiate for
billions of dollars seems to me to be .. well.. fraught.

and I can imagine several voices who could capitalize on .LOCAL, your local
supermarket chain amongst them.