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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4601A8A78 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 08:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 IKutFnYIoor4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 50E1D1A8A65 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFEB2DA007A; Tue, 12 May 2015 15:28:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (70.194.137.244) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 12 May 2015 08:28:37 -0700
References: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan> <FF464258-0C33-45CC-A684-BAB7BCE8A8FB@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1505082118060.31363@ary.lan> <0902600F-134B-4688-9CDD-1ACB23431DDE@vpnc.org> <20150512010624.GC74841@mx2.yitter.info> <62970575-A605-4B3E-9E98-D760B47E8532@isoc.org> <CAHw9_i+jpobNKtim=Gw3ZAjaU6ff3A-SHVrGHqn0AW7-WOwsNQ@mail.gmail.com> <A789E52D-9682-42C7-AF04-A25C8C43450F@nominum.com> <CAHw9_iL8CkQ8VwaCXza+vsYh990MJWsdF0crAdq2qLbJdhG6-Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iL8CkQ8VwaCXza+vsYh990MJWsdF0crAdq2qLbJdhG6-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <DA7987D3-BA53-4D88-9B83-E272D728A70E@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 11:28:36 -0400
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
X-Originating-IP: [70.194.137.244]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iN9_eJdfRs5pCFBxb3okykG3cBM>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Dan York <york@isoc.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 12 May 2015 15:28:39 -0000

On May 12, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> 
> Now, you still have the "metric" problem. How do you know that there
> really are "enough" users of YYY.ALT to justify reserving YYY (or, YYZ
> if YYY is already in use)? Dunno - but, you already have this issue. I
> think a large amount of it comes down to humans making a decision --
> I, you, and my auntie Eve have all heard of Onion. It's clear that
> *someone* is using it. Perhaps that's the best we can do...

We never do this perfectly in the IETF.  We've done plenty of protocol specs that never achieved any popularity. I think the test here needs to be that we have consensus to do the thing, and reasonably believe that it might catch on, and that there's no existing conflict with existing TLDs that ICANN has already assigned. The use that ICANN has chosen to sell for TLDs isn't something the IETF intended when we delegated that authority to them, so while I think we should try to be good citizens, we don't need to feel particularly guilty about taking special-use names if we have a valid reason for doing so and there is no pre-existing conflict.