Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry

George Michaelson <> Sun, 25 September 2016 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF1912B042 for <>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ssL6oZJK3La for <>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F23C1200DF for <>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z126so31329447vkd.0 for <>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7LEV0sjavDLwVnxwScAtwUlbH2RRzAr3hqaxiy/Rirg=; b=RzaUoKP81lpNS6qkWFe+C9JAenDQpwBC68R47D+vYD8WR+RmrPqEJ3coD06mxVDBhu fsE717TWuw9ZhhNf8WpNEKCPKVEL9q43BLlloDu5WF6p+rSIb9gDf/Hn2CDMDF291+lk ic4U4ofDTmaGRvScw30n99HgJJ3e7vU8Q838TF33h92P9bYlFdB36bQAqpP3jAd2/eJj u9DF5YLuD46CSOzyBKTeFyB43KwI+0RVrv8UJtbHJPQPSmsE1cJncrvUZ10iavp0SgeH vL51+dZh+oAojpQ5mPCPwfMl+7yoo0mK6DmVJbL2hF3uQ6QWqH3iWtmEwwPtDTYEP9Wr RupA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7LEV0sjavDLwVnxwScAtwUlbH2RRzAr3hqaxiy/Rirg=; b=arju6QMqtkBzDtbP+HDKAJ7sjULRdHf3DAoe5IpolXrr2cXExpDS2O6MObqDVU9t3p /0ceqZ4Qjz3wyJVRrxc2T7ipkeIY4bpNdD7hMNA9OXQKpfeaCaXEull8TJXuQcuDGESP 9ub5CCZQ5cQZepZR+5yJ3pyT/pZVEzWp5f6/vSO7UUlOEynIhwzLJHoiEvsnW2c2L0xY dpNzBeqjoOW38pPKttd9JAY4G+DWNjF47VLTPfr8nf/m7YWnukw0QMkEQL/QuzDNd3wa dpgVd43PMWyDWsYgG4Bm6ZmxH/gGRSLnlltBxb0dV3LPWNYiReLiUfB+QT1mc8dz1sMJ ocVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlEAsCkDYQ6RmB3XhRO19kbltRxPlZ2yKEro0OsUj2G4LcccQsXncgDdJE9h4YbwboOlBn6q1akfJpIEA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m80mr6031045vkd.43.1474842638538; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:a1d8:d575:485f:ab05]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 08:30:37 +1000
Message-ID: <>
To: Edward Lewis <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry
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: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:30:42 -0000

I would absolutely agree that DNSOP is the wrong place to try and
settle this problem because the problem is inherently about policy
decisions taken in a different place in process, and decided in a
different way. The IAB should be told to get the conversation rolling
on what they want, architecturally, and reflect on ICANN delegation
processes a bit more: the (apparently casual) assumption the IAB made
that a technical forum can (pretty arbitrarily) define a string in
high/top naming space is (IMHO) flawed. The technical *problem* which
desires a name may exist: the decision to delegate (or not-delegate or
reserve) is huge, as is the consequence of which label is chosen.
Thats non-technical.

If we just want to talk about it, since it reflects on DNS activity,
one can hardly say DNSOP is the wrong place to just talk. But the
likelihood of DNSOP emitting a document which bears on the problem
usefully looks low to me.

No reflection on the current draft authors intended: there is content
in both docs which I suspect the IAB is going to want to draw on.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> This is really well put, Ed.   Thanks.   I'm a little tempted to plagiarize
> you.
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Edward Lewis <>
> wrote:
>> I have gotten the sense of a belief that IANA (the IANA functions office)
>> runs many registries for the IETF and they are not controversial and because
>> of this, the issues surrounding the Special Use Domain Name registry are all
>> fluff and no substance.  But the Special Use Domain Name registry is a
>> special case, it is not a run-of-the-mill IANA registry.
>> The registry is special because the items registered are not bound in a
>> narrow scope.  The registered items (names) are used in many different
>> contexts.  This is opposed to protocol parameter registries, where the
>> registered item has a very narrow meaning.  E.g., "MX" as a mnemonic for the
>> numeric value of 15 in the registry for resource records is not treated as a
>> conflict with "MX" as the two-letter code for Mexico (not an IANA registry).
>> (Ignoring well known use problems with dig.)
>> There are registries run by IANA like the Special Use Domain Name registry
>> when it comes to scope.  To name two the IPv4 and IPv6 address registries.
>> Addresses and other number parameters (AS numbers) are used in narrow
>> contexts but are also seen in other places.  The point is that these
>> registries are supported by well-developed policies for entering items into
>> registries, the Regional Internet Registries have agreed to pan-RIR, global
>> policies on these registries.
>> This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the
>> discussions on the topic.  Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a
>> reflection that the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic.
>> That is not an insult because there's a significant difference between the
>> function of registration (of anything) and the function of the DNS system.
>> Those two topics are often confused and I think that is happening again.
>> If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period
>> and the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it is
>> understandable.  Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the
>> roster of other work represents "time better spent" means that this work
>> could be pushed off the table.  However, the discussion ought to be resumed
>> somewhere else.  I think that the Special Use Domain Name registry is needed
>> but as it is currently defined, inadequate.
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list