Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:35:19PM +0000,
 Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 49 lines which said:

> I wrote about six pages of comments on the recently-submitted
> special-use TLD problem statement document.

I like it. I find it better than the awful
draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem, with its disparaging
terminology ("pseudo-TLD", a term I would be glad to see replaced by
"SUTLD").

> However, I think it may serve as a better starting point for the
> discussion than the current problem statement draft,

+1 and I recommend to everyone to read it before the discussion on
friday.

A few remarks:

> its unilateral allocation by the TOR project without following the
> RFC 6761 process

.onion was created nine years before RFC 6761 so you cannot blame the
Tor people for not following it.

> 4.1.1.  Are Domain Names DNS Names?

You should really mention draft-lewis-domain-names here (you do it,
but later).

> 4.1.2.  Does Every Domain Name Have The Same Meaning Everywhere?

Your claim is that today's differences in DNS answers for a same name,
as we see them today, are not real differences because they don't
change the user experience, or because they are done for good (malware
domains filtering). You forgot a very important use case,
censorship. Today, if a domain name works in Germany and not in France
because of differential censorship, would you say it is "not really an
exception"?

Let's face it, we no longer have a common namespace and names no
longer have the same meaning everywhere, even when taking only the DNS
in to account.

> 4.5.  Experimental Squatting Problem

I dislike the term "squatting" which seems to imply that it was
illegal. Seriously, today, which avenue is open for a application
developer who thinks a special-use TLD would be nice for its
application? Besides patronizing like "we are the Elders, we know it
better, drop this stupid idea"?

> At present RFC 6761 doesn't give specific advice about what
> delegation, if any, should appear for newly registered SUTLDs.  It
> may be worthwhile to make a default recommendation for this.

See draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root, published ten minutes ago.