Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 23 September 2016 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 87BC212BE1E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 JX6g0o1SXnTC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8BE12BE0D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id g62so102237492lfe.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5EAHydVxVceNF26y+9zqkyqfQ7NA+jeKGL/HeJOT5bA=; b=WSVMUW6KxYAXAwbeFKRNegGv8k19yrhSn6Ygc7pUHvOXB1Wg1Xiyswy7QqAvIi3P/T HB87Pix8HZZeeDiCPhZ7Ij3ewAWrRTOaP40Q1DXYVaBRtwDGx1QqFglNWtKbjE4Y/TIO 8e1oJ6tF2CgtStMiHltzXBo53ggzEr3hRzkxC2McIj+sGou9ulMk4LmsnxHaQnzRn+yA ycNvw1/ZtgMPLq0JBOoXJTovcb1fcvz3X99CVShRE6ds7QebKKooIuX3RvgutzrPtq7T 1W41GoDZJBxnCYRDtbDYdzlOgQqyUwfa+BAyONmjYuVvPi3mVQml2YCb/8+ltW6YOmc7 C2dA==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5EAHydVxVceNF26y+9zqkyqfQ7NA+jeKGL/HeJOT5bA=; b=alZhTmigAXn7shox5USWztY4w5meJ5oC5bu4OTnA8gm11oxL8B+umVQJufUTfPSoiW gH5Wzp8byGvlY2v2rP3Vn13kjcFdaoNgO6g8qzqmVDiqaXpvN+w/Nc/UCT4B9ekwmDlA H5PjSldJqgoiMjLGQHL6V1e6DMDAWdo2fw+E9HY87ExmUpdxsYB+0sg0JckdqCiVSCkZ C+3xFld9c3NiHRGkJr6RzL/iT3WBXIMmnsS1SiXTdWogE5Ve3U3PS9nwpvKn5w9NBtoI wzLLiLeOG3foeHkgriTs/R+hr7fqorGqY2Rd52T3zuKuRlvv1dpe7X79IYdAMdyUE3ey 2HsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNmDkpFlNTqDsuHBdmtqrGGPSqn1tApA8u0pCz4w52/hwDp0uXwLjkaMk/IaFva3SR7VmqislCWjqwc4A==
X-Received: by 10.25.21.170 with SMTP id 42mr3209903lfv.78.1474666945735; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3CE0A36F-58C7-4FAF-B804-346E167D6AEC@icann.org>
References: <3CE0A36F-58C7-4FAF-B804-346E167D6AEC@icann.org>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:41:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1ngsNNB6tJhcy2uCUApF-gh_AmifJO=cY16rtVmzgeb8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114074667686a8053d33a793"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/eObZTfdyFc5aVRPcwXkzcioVTH0>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:42:30 -0000

This is really well put, Ed.   Thanks.   I'm a little tempted to plagiarize
you.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
wrote:

> I have gotten the sense of a belief that IANA (the IANA functions office)
> runs many registries for the IETF and they are not controversial and
> because of this, the issues surrounding the Special Use Domain Name
> registry are all fluff and no substance.  But the Special Use Domain Name
> registry is a special case, it is not a run-of-the-mill IANA registry.
>
> The registry is special because the items registered are not bound in a
> narrow scope.  The registered items (names) are used in many different
> contexts.  This is opposed to protocol parameter registries, where the
> registered item has a very narrow meaning.  E.g., "MX" as a mnemonic for
> the numeric value of 15 in the registry for resource records is not treated
> as a conflict with "MX" as the two-letter code for Mexico (not an IANA
> registry).  (Ignoring well known use problems with dig.)
>
> There are registries run by IANA like the Special Use Domain Name registry
> when it comes to scope.  To name two the IPv4 and IPv6 address registries.
> Addresses and other number parameters (AS numbers) are used in narrow
> contexts but are also seen in other places.  The point is that these
> registries are supported by well-developed policies for entering items into
> registries, the Regional Internet Registries have agreed to pan-RIR, global
> policies on these registries.
>
> This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the
> discussions on the topic.  Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a
> reflection that the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic.
> That is not an insult because there's a significant difference between the
> function of registration (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 the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it
> is understandable.  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 the 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 defined, inadequate.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>