Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Alain Durand <> Sat, 17 September 2016 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DA612B24B for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.708
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DURJdO3WFxAY for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E625812B23E for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:18:25 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:18:25 -0700
From: Alain Durand <>
To: John Levine <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 14:18:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <20160917001036.71292.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20160917001036.71292.qmail@ary.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_253383EB-C578-4C21-AD30-28327C56C60E"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 14:18:30 -0000

What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure toxicity. We could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and maybe then define a threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that particular string.

I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this list in 6761 is problematic, for the reason mentioned in section 3.f of darft-adpkja:

"f.  [RFC6761] does not have provision for subsequent management of
       the registry, such as updates, deletions of entries, etc…”


> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:10 PM, John Levine <> wrote:
> This is the toxic waste bit.  The names don't make sense in the 6761
> special use registry, since they're not being used in any way that is
> or can be standardized, but they also aren't suitable for delegation
> due to widespread de facto use.  I also expect that if we redid last
> year's debate in anything like the same way, we'd have the same
> result, one or two highly motivated people who work for TLD applicants
> would sabotage it.
> As I hardly need tell you, it is utterly unclear whether it makes more
> sense to have the IETF reserve them or, to switch hats and encourage
> ICANN to put them on a list of names that aren't in use but can't be
> delegated as SAC045 suggests.
> One reason that the latter makes slightly more sense is that it's
> likely that some of those names will eventually become less polluted,
> so the list needs to be reconsidered every once in a while (years.)
> For example, I gather that it's been a decade since Belkin stopped
> making routers that leak .belkin traffic, and at some point most of
> them will be gone.