Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-05.txt> (Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement) to Informational RFC

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:17:55PM -0700,
 The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 42 lines which said:

> The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System
> Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: -
> 'Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement'
> <draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-05.txt> as Informational RFC

For an issue which is quite contentious and sensitive, I think there
are some points in the document that deserve a change.

Biggest point: the IESG decided to freeze the RFC 6761 process
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/09/onion/> I regret this decision (RFC
6761 is still in force, it has not been deprecated or updated) and,
unfortunately, registration of new Special-Use Domain Names is now
impossible (pending an action on RFC 6761 that will probably never
come). So, de facto, a regular process has been shut down, leaving the
IETF without a possibility to register these domain names.

Now, on the draft:

* Section 3 says "No formal coordination process exists between the
IETF and ICANN" This is not true, there is a formal liaison
<https://www.ietf.org/liaison/managers.html> and it is even mentioned
laster, in section 4.1.4. This issue was mentioned during the WGLC
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OWt8DkBJ_JpIITF-R2YpwEhiwFs>

* Section 3 says "Use of the registry is inconsistent -- some
Special-Use Domain Name RFCs specify registry entries, some don't;
some specify delegation, some don't." There is no inconsistency
here. RFC 6761 says (in its section 5) that the reservation of a
Special-Use Domain Name is free to choose the rules regarding
resolution, as long as they are properly explained.

* Section 4.2.2 says "the fact of its unilateral use by The Tor
Project without following the RFC 6761 process" The onion TLD was in
use in Tor since 2004, nine years before the publication of RFC
6761. It is grossly unfair to reproach not following an unpublished
RFC. It was mentioned a long time ago
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nr4ECaVw6PT09o2xdM3jrKllHBI>

* Section 4.2.3 says "But it shares the problem that such names cannot
be assumed either to be unique or to be functional in all contexts for
all Internet-connected hosts." Unfortunately, because of the wide use
of censorship through lying DNS resolvers, this problem is now part of
our daily life. It would be nice if a name had the same global
signification, but it is no longer true.