Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Mon, 26 August 2019 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.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 799D3120043 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com
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 w-50lAT0Cb96 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 0EADB120041 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4798B6A284; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:03:55 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1566813835; bh=PJsTGHd9kfdk7Ifox4oBdv9W4r2o4T1qktCY1/27P18=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=55Xd/3qLSfU8JFVZzSBgMW0cSUV8bm+VRl8krg9dJntqZxEbgxJPzCEvEgN5Kr8bm Tk8AQ3HDjNxRWjGFs7+gwSD/zZxHVOyCwZx4BbarphcmBUCNRiTVJulPvhEE0U66iW yJyG0uZPfo/+uvE7evdk7Ykxa/q+aMTio78XQ3sAWYow+6pNri3O5JeSixfbLtKIrG BI3HYl9aE7YAmaee7eWC/2lDn7ByPwXVv3744cfVF9HLo/Zy8nrcF3N3nnk+IEGne6 YwmvrRpqRU+/SRJ91lZC5tplYmL2xDXtRfRiHY40ahAtSQsIJqpDT9z524kvnn/KTM PZqf8HURl1/YA==
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B7973C0911; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:03:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:03:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
Reply-To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <918224692.3642.1566813835197@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKmbwK7v8V5a0jCr4J+urDH57WSEvZGMggCZ9ew=ZKZzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <119AA1A0-86AB-4757-8B15-E36822A3C6FF@gmail.com> <20190818182935.F172A87452C@ary.qy> <CAHw9_iK1aMZduMuyji0jYr96sLuun-yE3a8sccdmiQ85smr57A@mail.gmail.com> <756FFFA3-6153-4490-8472-BD89EA85CF40@hopcount.ca> <CAHw9_iKmbwK7v8V5a0jCr4J+urDH57WSEvZGMggCZ9ew=ZKZzg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.2-Rev11
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pETIbap-z84Tg9dCBJdZcALVqCY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext
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, 26 Aug 2019 10:04:02 -0000


> Il 24 agosto 2019 00:35 Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> ha scritto:
> 
> There was also some discussions with Jacob (or perhaps Alec) saying
> that if this had existed when they started, they probably would have
> used onion.alt instead of .onion.
> 
> Whether or not people would *actually* have used it is unknowable, but:
> 1: at least now they *do* have the option and
> 2: in the future we can point at this instead of just having to agree
> that they didn't have an option other than squatting.

I am in favour of trying this: it is simple and it won't do much harm if it fails, but it addresses a few of the problem cases specified in RFC8244 section 3 (I'd say #7, #8, and parts of #5 and #9). Of course it doesn't address the problem of people who do not know or do not care, they will just continue making up TLDs and using them - though some kind of information and peer pressure effort whenever these cases arise could have some effect, as a practical alternative would now exist.

Perhaps, as a guideline either here or somewhere in a future revision of RFC6761 (i.e. here), application developers should be told that before asking for a special use TLD they SHOULD/MUST experiment with a name under .alt, and prove the existence of some running code, adoption and success before moving to a TLD (and plan their implementations since the beginning so that such a move can actually be done). This would act in two ways: it would avoid wasting energy on discussing abstract special use TLD proposals that seem a great idea to some while others claim that they'll never work, and it would encourage people with successful .alt subdomains to move to a special use TLD to get the benefit of guaranteed non-collision, if they see merit in it.

This is also why not having a registry under .alt makes sense. Having one would make .alt second-level domains almost a functional duplicate of special use TLDs, raising the bar to get them and making special use TLDs only better in vanity/shortness, which would lead the IETF to have to deal mostly with vanity TLD applications.

(Also, you have "handing" instead of "handling" once in 4.1.1 and twice in 4.1.2.)

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy