Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 04 February 2014 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 7665E1A03D9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 02:30:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 Tsiq7rtbP5rQ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 02:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA581A02BC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 02:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (c-75-69-155-67.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [75.69.155.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F5928A031 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 10:29:57 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 05:29:56 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140204102956.GB16366@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <ACF06352-98E5-4368-A8C9-5AB50783C2D3@hopcount.ca> <20140203212333.1259EE44493@rock.dv.isc.org> <CF15D98C.197C0B%jonne.soininen@renesasmobile.com> <CAKr6gn1dpWz3LP9bpA2JebRDSN7GeOW65+Q1tW_dv=9KzgZaCQ@mail.gmail.com> <A6D7CE2E-BF9C-4077-A571-0C455E5DAE1F@nominum.com> <CAKr6gn08xayJCK_GtGNeYbet6tD=GwPJoSYL3tbRXomfxckHWA@mail.gmail.com> <ED2AE016-766D-41DE-A428-DEC49A350E8C@nominum.com> <20140204012148.GE16180@mx1.yitter.info> <CF160FB8.1983E7%jonne.soininen@renesasmobile.com> <20140204085134.GC17756@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140204085134.GC17756@nic.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
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, 04 Feb 2014 10:30:00 -0000

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> had no part in the ICANN creation. I remember a discussion with Stuart
> Cheshire where he explained that IETF, not ICANN, created the entire
> name space, since it created the rules, and therefore has rights above
> those of ICANN.

With respect, while that is one view of the history, it is surely not
the only one, and it seems to me it is one that is not shared by all
the actors in this space.  Most importantly, it involves a false
dichotomy between "ICANN" and "IETF": neither organization existed at
the time the DNS name space was created, so it's hard to credit the
idea that either of them created the name space.

I do not think we want to turn over the rock labelled, "Who owns the
DNS name space?"  Under that rock live all manner of creatures from
layer 9 and above.  We have two allocation procedures: regular
allocation via IANA procedures (which happen to be defined right now
in ICANN) and RFC 6761.  One of those procedures is the one we can
exercise, and I still believe the only question is whether any
particular registration attempt works under RFC 6761.  I agree with
Ted Lemon that the question of what happened in the past is not
exactly relevant.  What _is_ relevant in my view is how these names
need to be used in support of the protocols they're supposed to be
supporting.  This is exactly the same question I had since I first
read the grothoff draft; see my earlier review.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com