IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 15 June 2020 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 3C21B3A0416 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=lNrLMRah; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=qH4qUy5P
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 V-LE-VOZVnli for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF0A23A07C3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16944 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2020 00:09:45 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=422d.5ee6bc49.k2006; bh=XAO+Rz+JvreVHcdcOd0R7RzNgpBtX78Er/4MBDvGdxA=; b=lNrLMRah/5VcSEk4iWWipd42o6jo6flhImvLrbCj+FvnRpC6PuDzSg4t5JilNLHbEJlJWEEedIgOErxVEqCdc/R8qM6pnO54CgwHNito3mQdYLH8XrC4oxjqp5MLmUhjhh1wRYwkPQec5kaUoseHrVZ78LbsTf5QaVzdBTk9VW5n7lVThdv0gYLKO/jiVl8qfJ1sabuYSLpKrNLbu7FxvuPmRa8KVY5/W6TMfd6u74McEDjbvRZxYZ2akypek9vo
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=422d.5ee6bc49.k2006; bh=XAO+Rz+JvreVHcdcOd0R7RzNgpBtX78Er/4MBDvGdxA=; b=qH4qUy5P34hvaMSA+uPpDkT6Q4w5RwEu9K4EvFBBVY2TdcvIIaknbwzg2zkc1pEXQl7L4sMAhCJLckDVdLWm8fhpUy5dq4fqvDlVWb8zgaR2tB2kjKCaN5ka5aOYCQcGRpXL9V+WDBRv4/tuCju/sKerw3rR0u7cgsujjtCsbSxa7LN83m8+enSbkqChZIoYKs1menpmBzTfCqdshTw5hMpJEJ/RGy0BC8Pe/jhK8eexlRlkJHXjg4NWRgS1lDFG
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 15 Jun 2020 00:09:44 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8E9B21ABA8E6; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:09:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:09:44 -0400
Message-Id: <20200615000944.8E9B21ABA8E6@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: msj@nthpermutation.com
In-Reply-To: <cbdd85c7-7ef4-9306-ebf9-ee6b67ac443a@nthpermutation.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nNjKFEJyG9_N4xmimo0JIcipPpk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:09:48 -0000

In article <cbdd85c7-7ef4-9306-ebf9-ee6b67ac443a@nthpermutation.com> you write:
>you've got a point - why not just include all 43?

I think because on any real network, at least 41 of them will not be
used, and there's no way to guess which.

While I think that these non-ccTLDs are as good a candidate as we're
ever going to find for TLDs on which you can squat without colliding
with a real domain name, after many decades of squattage we're no
closer to having any idea how you can squat safely and without
leaking.

Indeed, with the advent of DoH that deliberately circumvents the
system resolver we're probably farther than we were a decade ago.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email