Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2DE129536 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 tBxzkYbZWsXy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (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 7A77D126FDC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id l7so87245504ioe.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CFcU1tPdRFfZPUcMOOcu7uogcAyeHBtnNm8+FrcgCHE=; b=hOdlg7jtaJs7y6KosApz+zAWPRWX4CCkn0Gv4IV/uT3v8TTfvIixk3hhqdAPNAET9D OBArLgc7rDwA4VcDxFXhL3EuLGWxb/g1bvHi9d7T+oYZlbcn9iwX6TNNhSaSXDBEZ2ua PjLa2lPbiee4C1kkRyDiauUAc0pQG+yODq9nWVsIGlmVA/vAaQFXttZ/D2YkjP5aNZ22 RuH7mVVhsHajW0FmrDHDALvNqOfjXtz329gNoym/29QWOu9vifZs8EYaAlHF0i+27WQl 7/WaSad1WL4SxzCNjzYRjZA36yx2W4ea0KC21iUIN+RnkQv5GoYkiY5BcJnqh7pc8GEA us2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CFcU1tPdRFfZPUcMOOcu7uogcAyeHBtnNm8+FrcgCHE=; b=GTGdNM/v+Xbu7MES1AS0yzjKn3vQ1MyDJreFYHXnZOg5WUkUmH1esYMojkVKNqrmT0 bfKeObAaqAINH06Vee4fe7pmJgsi6xMqJk/DluwHR1PU6S/PRb2LIWAEd2Y2gsBW48pJ JeygSMZUdA5+RtTyoVburjCN+BH+SMfdwba2puPGYyDsWpGniYhyLsZ+OOGhv9LrtTwH F8fSM6Z3t5OTp0PAhwz+l64yVM0FxtCbAvwFULtkZq5abob84lWulrDQHyiIzoRP8cVG 2T8Qbd+Z+7HKwzCLJAJ0dTtKbRbNXtrtPy1+orhXAMCpl+6pPRXg996pD8y3tO8nInTn Vf9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1pDaBjwyB0w7cqzjLwWA16gK4LZ8HUYJKJVI6Hh6qMmzmK38RzPRpClDtdgCjYQTNbYL9TkvaSfB95pw==
X-Received: by 10.107.136.41 with SMTP id k41mr21802803iod.160.1491272771733; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.46.151 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:26:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH1iCird=mJ-DKa8bJ06H-PwUU0SmNeUo_nSK1A++EuDzcnO4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec618d29e87054c4dffdf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/m7s49PfT50doed0yN0uIk_BMki4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 Apr 2017 02:26:15 -0000

In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson,
I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the
IAB statement.

My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three
possibilities for a special name.

The first is, a special but needs DNS resolution. This is one case the IAB
says, "register it and put it in DNS under arpa". (I don't think that is
controversial at all, and a wise recommendation.)

The second is, a Very Special, but does not belong in DNS.  (IAB second
option.)

The third is, a Not Very Special, and not in DNS. Not registered, FCFS. Not
covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO
not conflicting with the IAB statement.

Very Special: It gets its entry in the registry in order to establish its
uniqueness, but isn't in DNS, so no entry under arpa. This avoids the
possibility of multiple mechanisms for interception fighting with each
other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and
also in-scope for the IAB statement.

Not Very Special: whoever wants the name, is reasonably sure it won't be
exposed outside of a closed environment (e.g. a single application), and
doesn't want or need to go through the 6761 process to get the name
registered.

Not Very Special is basically 6761 without the registry, in a first-come,
first-served, no guarantees kind of way.

The "onion" thing showed the need for some way of avoiding TLDs, avoiding
conflicting names, and avoiding heavy process, IMHO. And I think "alt" is
the right answer.

Also IMHO, making it "alt.arpa" would be very confusing; I think any time
someone sees "arpa" as the TLD, they should believe it exists in the DNS.

Having "alt" be the parent name here, and not be in the DNS, keeps things
clear even to non-DNS folks.

And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that
kind-of are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be
something where "alt.arpa" would make sense. But given the relative ease in
adding things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating
non-registered FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa.

Brian