[DNSOP] dotless names (was Re: followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps)

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 27 May 2015 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 3F6781AD0B3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2015 19:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 cMaTLf-QxzC1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2015 19:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com (mail-qc0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49F711AD0B4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2015 19:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qchk10 with SMTP id k10so11083841qch.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2015 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=3Zf+8WK3ksrcFgAaSpiD+ePMDtLSJO5ADn9YZa9p1EE=; b=S7fFkwgTFyu7AzJQgK99tCvFizRMlHB5BLm1SZQsPXHiLDq+HOK5CAhAe1i6Whmpzs Xdzjf0Ac79uiX9l309E3e89EBOASIaERo5tHs2KzmCr/b7EgxZZ+fv8N07jCLEHuf4Ds tiQ7F3jq4kNMhS96fSLVZAuh1dcBju8He+ahzE4/HYlFQKbs/hky64QGMLh3LJ0lyQWo XeN9bbdYqvEuAwJGf5oQcpsF9uXwpnXPA0CfLWeHedN1W5rCkAzmzYrcgkAuBIMQ7d3H iFPgysOXsW4LWnN7RPW5ZejsFgOi54VflX3a5QIXsH98YJKxn4qqNGysHvNBpQ3uu5aF 5cQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnDa+Vi93Tth4wLdpPrPcS1KJVUcPSg8gjmVslkizMf7J4J6Bmjeu6npKJGvWvWqEXHjmmL
X-Received: by 10.55.49.147 with SMTP id x141mr62251641qkx.23.1432694379407; Tue, 26 May 2015 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.47.61.14] (47-236.dc.icann.org. [192.0.47.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 6sm9684177qks.37.2015.05.26.19.39.37 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 May 2015 19:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E204273F-4CF3-4684-909E-109D770F89D0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <5564F291.70109@redbarn.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 05:39:34 +0300
Message-Id: <F309667B-081C-4CC4-8216-5135D212E4BC@virtualized.org>
References: <20150526211813.15713.qmail@ary.lan> <CB0978C7-AB12-4580-A7D7-6E87991D7BAA@nic.br> <5564F291.70109@redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jQ0tMlMFpeQZNM0-lHB5L5avmxI>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: [DNSOP] dotless names (was Re: followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps)
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: Wed, 27 May 2015 02:39:43 -0000

<digression>

> dotless names were never contemplated as endpoints, even in the HOSTS.TXT era

Err, what?

All names were dotless in the "HOSTS.TXT era" (well, depending on what you mean by the "HOSTS.TXT era" -- I'm assuming pre-RFC 881) and they were all endpoints.

> the raw
> fact of the matter is that a dotless name should _never_ be accidentally
> presentation-reachable.

I'd be OK dotless names if there is a mutual understanding of the implications of those name for relevant parties. For example, I think it'd be fun to move the root servers out of root-servers.net and into the root, i.e.:

$ORIGIN .
...
a IN A 198.41.0.4
b IN A 192.228.79.201
...

> what i mean by presentation reachable is, you can't ping it, you can't
> send mail to it, you can't point an MX or NS or PTR at it, you can't
> look up its AAAA or A by typing it into a web browser, and so on.

Maybe those features are actually desirable. The real issue is expectations. For the vast majority of uses dotless names are simply not an option as there are way too many built-in expectations in pretty much every piece of software that deals with domain names.  However, as mentioned above, there may be cases where there are no expectations (or, the expectations aren't actually necessary -- does any root server operator want someone to try to point their browser at their root server and get something useful back?).

</digression>

Regards,
-drc