Re: [DNSOP] [EXTERNAL] Possible alt-tld last call?
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 17 October 2022 18:40 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 635B4C14F732 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMBJAQhA5ixw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::85]) (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 661BFC14CE3E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Mrm5g4BDnz40F; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:40:39 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1666032039; bh=aHodKGF6cht9Pb6qxk64hvemyON7bPjtz/ByVR2O7dQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=gg9j44lkIAYxp6As9kratyJcq5zYanJgpb/KeK5Ct0BeaWFKftjyzsg7tFSC3J47W OXhGqhnTTwgna44aAdeeCR8QUvq81BE9GGhRWUjdEolgEEbh5EOR1NFrTlL6Fpdx9V 610WKcjVqxRsgW/IcPqvhnbhldMgL5WAcJ8IKFb8=
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 JfDd_aWEKTkx; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:40:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:40:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 633073F6130; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:40:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6067B3F612F; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:40:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:40:37 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Suzanne Woolf <swoolf@pir.org>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A23C383E-AD1E-493D-91A0-5A5DADB7B365@pir.org>
Message-ID: <6b2a1dbc-3e75-7d7e-ee2-f9a2db6164a3@nohats.ca>
References: <D4D1C61C-6DAF-4D02-A861-D808270687B0@pir.org> <525283bb-e748-46a-c7d1-40b66362cba9@nohats.ca> <A23C383E-AD1E-493D-91A0-5A5DADB7B365@pir.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/grWxQQriWf_aCVOCYixBPYxvB6Y>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [EXTERNAL] Possible alt-tld last call?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 17 Oct 2022 18:40:45 -0000
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> One could advance the 6761bis proposal document first, which would >> remove these non-compliance items as those would be no longer needed >> (as the bis document proposal removes it as these were not consistently >> required in the past). Alternatively, ignoring it wouldn't be the first >> time these are ignored, so I guess there is a precedence of ignoring it. > > I've read the 6761bis draft (draft-hoffman-rfc6761bis), and it struck me as a bit baffling that the proposed answer to a couple of cases of non-compliance with a MUST in a standards-track registry policy document is to throw out the MUST, rather than address a possible problem with approving or processing requests. I believe it is more than "a couple". I think Paul Hoffman has the numbers. > More to the point, the questions are there to make sure that DNS operators (and others) know what is required of their configurations and protocols in order to interoperate between DNS and non-DNS operations and protocols that are using domain name conventions for their names. The draft appears to propose keeping the original registry policy ("Standards Action or IESG Approval") while reducing the amount of information required as a basis for a decision, which seems unlikely to make things any easier or more effective for the IESG, DNS operators and implementers, or anyone else. Seeing as we are in a 5+ year stalemate, I am not sure how it could not be "more effective". But I think you are mixing up two things. Entries under .arpa and new "TLD like" entries. The latter has seen lots of pushback, including from dnsops (eg the .home proposal getting pushed into home.arpa). The entries for .arpa are well discussed, well formed drafts, and while they might require special handling, most do not. Those who do are well specified (eg resolver.arpa) and see full work done within their respective WGs to reach RFC status in the proper way. And on top of that, from now on will see review from the DNS Directorate as well. TLD requests however, have always been a minefield and dnsop is not the right place for discussing these. It often has fairly little to do with the actual DNS protocol or operations. > Recall that the request for .onion (RFC 7686) was initiated under the same registry policy we have today, and the IESG could have offered its approval without DNSOP (or anyone else) providing a standards-track document taken through normal WG process. They preferred giving it to the IETF WG whose constituency is DNS operators and implementers. The IESG handed DNSOP a problem to solve via https://www.ietf.org/blog/onion/ However, subsequent to this action, the IESG believes RFC 6761 needs action, and substantial community input. It needs to be open for review and modification because the current process is unscalable. Several other names had also been submitted for consideration as special names, and the RFC may not give adequate guidance about how when names should be identified as special names. Special names should also be, as the name implies – special and rare. The DNSOP working group is chartered to address this RFC 6761 review. But 7 years later, there is still no published 6761bis. I would therefor argue that DNSOP has proven to not be the right place to do this. I do not see how you can turn that into a "[the IESG] preferred giving it to the IETF WG whose constituency is DNS operators and implementers.". I mean the "preferred" in the past tense is correct. I am not sure the current IESG still agrees after 7 years. > In other words, I've always thought that all of Section 5, including the MUST, is there to support interoperability, and removing the requirement to provide relevant information seems like a step backwards for that goal. While that makes sense for entries in .arpa, it hardly makes sense for new TLD-like domains that are per definition non-DNS (if they were DNS, then ICANN should be dealing with those TLD names). >> I think it draft would be better if it said something along the lines >> of: >> >> No code changes are required to properly handle leaked queries for .alt >> into the DNS, but: >> >> 1) Implementations MAY handle .alt specially by (pre)fetching the proofs >> of non-existence of .alt and serve these for all .alt queries. >> 2) implementations MAY rely on their query minimalization to accomplish 1) >> 3) or MAY do nothing special, which should work fine but might leak SLD >> queries to the root if the implementation and its querier didn't do query >> minimalization) >> 4) MAY return FORMERR on .alt queries that in some ways violate the DNS >> specification (so that no code changes are mandatory to support the >> madness .alt queries could bring in, eg >63 SLD names) > > This is the kind of detail I think is important to provide in a document that's essentially about interoperability, whether it's explicitly required or not. Thank you. Sure, it would be nice to get something like this in for this document. But it would be even nicer if we can be sure to close the "loophole" of needing to discuss any further "TLD like" domains in DNSOP after this, hence my desire for something like Paul Hoffman's 6761bis, where "TLD like" things (after we do .alt) no longer need DNSOP, and in every case I can think of now, should be rejected by the IESG or IETF review. That is, we should never get more people back who squatted a string (used or unused) that due to its large scale deployment, sort of forces IETF to delegate a TLD for. Which to me seems to only objective difference between the 5 TLDs that were originally requested in draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00 Paul
- [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Martin Schanzenbach
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Christian Huitema
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Martin Schanzenbach
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [EXTERNAL] Possible alt-tld last call? Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [EXTERNAL] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Martin Schanzenbach
- [DNSOP] Speculations Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible alt-… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] Speculations Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible … David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] Speculations Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible … rubensk
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Martin Schanzenbach
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Martin Schanzenbach
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [DNSOP] protocol switches, was Possible alt-t… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] no regitry for you, Possible al… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] no regitry for you, Possible al… Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] no regitry for you, Possible al… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Martin Schanzenbach
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] no regitry for you, Possible al… Martin Schanzenbach
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] no regitry for you, Possible al… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] no regitry for you, Possible al… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? libor.peltan
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- [DNSOP] URI (scheme or other) future work (was Re… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? paul
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? libor.peltan
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… Wessels, Duane
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… John R Levine
- [DNSOP] "Moving .INT" (was Re: [Ext] root crud, P… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] "Moving .INT" (was Re: [Ext] root cru… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… Klaus Frank
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… libor.peltan
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… Klaus Frank
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] root crud, Possible alt-tld las… Andrew Sullivan