Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Thanks—this is a very helpful response.   So if I were to condense your response down, I would pull out the following (I'm doing this not to put words in your mouth, but because I'm trying to make sure I don't misrepresent what you've said):

1. Although the current proposal doesn't create a clearly bad amount of stress on root servers, a policy of allocating tons of sTLDs might eventually have a substantial impact on the root, simply because of the large number of unanswerable queries that would be emitted from brokenware and not caught by intermediate caches.   So we should be figuring out what, if anything, we can do about that eventuality, should it arise.

2. You seem to be agreeing with the statement that's been made by a number of folks that if the particular proposed allocations are to happen, the discussion ought to include ICANN, because they have thought about this issue a lot (you didn't actually say this, but it's what I take from your response to my point 2).   And this has the same scaling problems you mentioned in point 1, this time with respect to the thought process about trademarks.

3. Adding a lot of sTLDs really will have a significant impact on stub resolvers (you gave some good examples).

4. Not having clear specifications will exacerbate the problem mentioned in 3, and you don't know whether the current specifications are clear enough (my own experience of them from having gone and looked is that there is probably a lot of the right information, but it's not straightforward to find it, and it's not clear that it's stable in any useful sense).

To respond to your final points:

> 	* I'm not convinced the current draft is clear enough on the operational specifics of how an implementor should treat the requested names, or how the overall DNS system will manifest leakage or other mishandling of these names. This is operational and probably fixable.

Yup.   I think we need to have a better answer than we currently have, and to a point drc made a while back, probably better data than we have now on the current garbage query load on the root.

> 	* I'm not convinced we've thought through how to manage "technical"/infrastructure DNS-like names in a world where those have policy implications we may not like but can't reasonably ignore. This is a matter of architecture and policy and can really only be resolved by discussion and judgment.

That's pretty much what moved me to start this conversation.   I think it's been a useful conversation, but I don't think we've really got an answer yet.