Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

John,

> On May 8, 2015, at 12:42 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The justification for removing home/corp/mail primarily appears to be "because they showed up
>> 'a lot' at the root servers". Without characterizing this a bit better, it seems to me it would
>> be trivial to set up situations to move pretty much any undelegated name to the "Special Names"
>> registry -- just fire up a few thousand zombies to query names in the TLD you want removed
>> using random source addresses.
> 
> Hmmn.  Is this a serious accusation,

Accusation?

> or is this just channelling the
> usual domainers whinging about their business plans?

Neither. It is an honest question as to how to objectively identify which non-delegated TLDs are receiving sufficient traffic as to justify never delegating them.  You know, sort of like how one would be able to justify a statement like:

>>> I'd probably put "lan" into the same group, no doubt to the dismay of the South American airline group.


But thanks for debasing the conversation.

> Does anyone seriously argue that those domains aren't widely used in
> private networks, and that nominally private DNS names leak all the time?


Depends on the name.  Why do you call out home/corp/mail? Should LAN be reserved or not?  What's your criteria?

Regards,
-drc