Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

... and this was only intended to go to Richard and Ed, not waste the
entire WGs time with my bizarre imaginings...

W

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Edward Lewis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 7/1/15, 14:26, "Richard Barnes" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making.  Let's
>>>>engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting.  For my
>>>>money, alt-TLD looks about right.
>>>
>>> How does that help this:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 7/1/15, 1:47, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> .onion and .i2p (and to my knowledge, the other proposed P2P-Names
>>>>>>>>>> TLDs too) have to conform to DNS rules in order to be usable in
>>>>>>>>>>legacy
>>>>>>>>>> applications that expect domain names.
>>>
>>> Having a alt-TLD is fine.  But what if names are proposed, experimented
>>> and deployed outside the sphere of influence of the IETF and/or working
>>> group?  Writing this as someone who is unfamiliar with "other proposed
>>> P2P-Names" efforts and whether they want to engage with "standards bodies"
>>> before deploying.  I've gotten the impression that members of those
>>> efforts dislike standards processes - I may be wrong but that's the
>>> impression I've gotten from the discussion on this list.
>>
>> The thing that got .onion to the IETF is that they needed to be
>> "official".  (So that they could get certificates for .onion names.)
>> Until they get an RFC 6761 registration, they're in a grey zone of
>> being neither officially DNS names nor officially not DNS names.
>>
>> ISTM that the benefit of .alt is that it creates a
>> clearly-not-normal-DNS zone.  We would have to check with the CAs, but
>> I think that that would do a lot to prevent issues like what .onion
>> ran into.  My hope would be that that benefit would make it appealing
>> enough for at least some of these other pseudo-TLDs to tolerate the
>> switching cost.
>
>
> It also provides the ability for the IETF to push back more easily on
> some applications.
>
> Warning: The following is how this plays out in my mind. Many things
> in here are a little odd, but, hey, it's my imagination, not yours...
>
> Dramatis personae:
> Applicant: A young, eager developer.
> IETF (personification): Played by someone who looks like a cross
> between Spencer Dawkins and Scott Bradner. For some reason speaks with
> a strong Scottish accent...
>
> Without .alt:
> (Applicant enters stage left)
> Applicant: I'd like .foo added to the SUN registry please. I've
> developed a resolution service that maps from names of cartoon
> characters to IP addresses, and is use by many many people. It meets
> all the RFC6761 requirements....
> IETF: You did a bad thing. You should not have simply squatted on a
> label. Anyway, a namespace made up of cartoon character names is
> silly...
> Applicant: But this meets all of the 6761 requirements, and I've got
> dozens of people using this. Anyway, I didn't really have an
> alternative, did I? How is anyone supposed to innovate in the
> namespace?!
> IETF: Well, erm.... you should have... errrr... um... ideally you
> would... err... Yeah, OK, we'll make .foo be a Special Use Name, but
> don't do it again, OK?!
> (Applicant skips off stage left, IETF plods off stage right, looking dejected)
>
>
> With .alt:
> (Applicant enters stage left)
> Applicant: I'd like .foo added to the SUN registry please. I've
> developed a resolution service that maps from names of cartoon
> characters to IP addresses, and is use by many many people. It meets
> all the RFC6761 requirements....
> IETF: You did a bad thing. You should not have simply squatted on a
> label; we have a defined process and location for this sort of thing,
> it's called .alt  <IETF waves sheaf of papers> Anyway, cartoon
> characters as a basis for a namespace? Really?
> Applicant: But I didn't know about .alt... and I've got dozens of
> users, dozens I tell you...<shakes fist>
> IETF: Sorry, ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
> Applicant: Fine....
> (Applicant stomps off stage left in a bit of a huff, IETF looks
> remarkably smug, then exits stage right to further examine navel)
> [ Unfortunately the IETF ends up looking like a bit of an ass here,
> but redeems itself later by doing something helpful for the community,
> or, at least, entertaining... Hey, I did warn you that things in my
> brain are often a little, um, surreal... ]
>
> The IETF can still add things to the RFC6761 / RFC6761bis registries,
> but at least has:
> A: provided an alternative for people who /want/ to do the right thing and
> B: more of a leg to stand on if we need to push back on nuisance
> applications in the future.
>
> W
>
>
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf