Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

I have a lot of agreement for what David is saying. What I say below may
not of course point there, and he might not agree with me because this
isn't a bilaterally equal thing, to agree with someone, but I do. I think I
do agree with what he just said.


I think that prior use by private decision on something which was
demonstrably an administered commons, with a body of practice around how it
is managed, is a-social behaviour.

And I think drawing some distinction about TOR/Onion 'because we like it'
compared to the VPN squats is to commit a faux pas, with two different
considerations.

In some equity-sense, its the 'two wrongs don't make a right' thing. TOR
will of course be affected by a migration cost, but if they accept that
cost, and move their dependency into .ALT or some other space, they respect
the community process better than what is basically a squat-claim 'I got
there first'. It was wrong to take the label, and it would be wrong to
simply accede. It dis-empowers future rights to use the label without some
process in the community eye.

In some process-sense, if you say "names get decided over ->HERE" and then
say "...oh wait, except when we  feel like it" you invite many people to
say "that class of reservation against process is the distortion which
makes us very uncomfortable with working in your space. Why should we
believe what you say you do, if you do this?"

If we want a reserved names process, then even the CORP case is .. hard.
Its a pragmatic decision, not a reflection of some dependency we
consciously wanted. The technology drivers on this are (for me) pretty
thin. Its a do-no-harm choice.

I know asking TOR to recode off ONION is not a do-no-harm choice, but its a
lesser harm to the process and equity for me.

I also think there is a quality to "we don't mean it to be in the DNS"
which makes me want to ask: Why do you let it exist in
URL/URI/Omnibox-input space?

If its typed into anything which heads to a field which we already use to
do gethostbyname() calls, what did you think was going to happen?

-G

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:03 AM, David Conrad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Lyman,
>
> >> It is neither: it is a DNS operational issue. A "large" number of
> people are apparently squatting on CORP/HOME/MAIL. Delegation of those TLDs
> would thus impact that "large" number of people.
> >
> > I think it is inaccurate (and unhelpful) to refer to the people who have
> been using corp/home/mail as squatters; most of them have simply been
> following what textbooks, consultants, and "best practice" guidelines have
> been advocating for a long time.
>
> Somewhat irrelevant, but I'll admit I don't see a whole lot of difference
> between folks using .CORP and folks like those who came up with the Hamachi
> VPN using 5.0.0.0/8 (before it had been allocated by IANA -- as an aside,
> I find it sadly ironic that their solution to 5.0.0.0/8 being allocated
> was to move to 25.0.0.0/8, at least according to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMeIn_Hamachi).  I recall the Hamachi
> folks' choice to use 5.0.0.0/8 being described as squatting. I recall a
> number of people on NANOG have suggested using 7.0.0.0/8 (etc) to deal
> with the lack of IPv4 address space. And then there is the use of
> 1.0.0.0/8. What qualitative difference do you see between those uses of
> numbers and the use of TLDs like CORP?
>
> (I'm told that "squatting" does not necessary have negative connotations,
> particularly outside the US)
>
> > The security/stability concerns do not prevent ICANN from selling them.
>
> As I understand it, it does prevent them from being delegated, thus
> resulting in the situation where the applicants have the ability (so I
> understand) to request a refund.
>
> > I'm saying that the IETF's core interest in a stable, operating Internet
> is the context in which the issue should be resolved.
>
> I agree and as I've said before, I think it would be really nice if the
> IETF could move CORP/HOME/MAIL to reserved like the TLDs in 2606. However,
> the question I still have: what criteria do you use to decide that
> delegating a TLD would negatively impact the stable operation of the
> Internet?
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>