Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

"John Levine" <> Sat, 17 September 2016 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA86212B386 for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u-DWQvz6NAJe for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253DA12B382 for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22838 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2016 00:10:56 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 17 Sep 2016 00:10:56 -0000
Date: 17 Sep 2016 00:10:36 -0000
Message-ID: <20160917001036.71292.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
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 00:11:00 -0000

>Speaking of history, DNSOP spent a huge amount of time talking about those
>specific strings a year or two ago (and decided to not adopt Lyman's doc).
>We can mention the issue in more depth (John, do you have any suggested
>text (especially if we can avoid mentioning the specific strings again)?),
>but we don't want to get into relitigating the whole topic here.

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.