Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 985B8126DFB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=C5NUhTGr; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=KQgdDTrV
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 5Yd-crIE3-aY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC00012778E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0A2BEF8C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:09:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1491340177; bh=a1rV7SwFm+eKHhY2HmJdrcESsWHYS/oby9z3c3JCQN0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=C5NUhTGrTtIbca7oHPRmPe9Qztkxes+r5RjHU/J0SiwQ7yjpk8Y/eEGB/lKbXIl+G DpQ5fdUZx6gcRVnVQFh+ZIwQfLGv9IiF5Evm/rQJXkJjJWINigzknpZLsUOBgTWzo/ /ufbIG/AqTABnxPvgI2UVijYI0A8ChUzzdeMYZi0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1LSQ1gInWxEf for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:09:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:09:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1491340176; bh=a1rV7SwFm+eKHhY2HmJdrcESsWHYS/oby9z3c3JCQN0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KQgdDTrVC2YxHvgcZBjAD1P5V+cc1BCov++C9teN5i9efkXwiGmpmwa5VZc6l/w3u w01H2kwaMrpFz7ZRP4iPL5thZaFgzOQBwtBkUgJj/8Mw+8KtZKJbfqj6CRb56rqaF2 hkoU7+pAij8SK/bFfxwu4DMZhoVr0IZxX+uYOgZo=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170404210934.GB1803@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <333CCE99-82E2-44C9-97ED-2222540097ED@gmail.com> <20170401201727.GA5948@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAKr6gn3uPHaGi3zmYmzAkuadjAyPMYGqZ5jHZp=rFo+DMLm7AA@mail.gmail.com> <3C85C5DB-7F1A-45B7-BE2A-926065F2C266@vpnc.org> <CAKr6gn2xooGe2haYur70eiNrxxkGO603-YRJMr2DNKouWJQ3nw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn2xooGe2haYur70eiNrxxkGO603-YRJMr2DNKouWJQ3nw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pMo1Zc5zohXo_T6CNUcPtWuZM5M>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:10:11 -0000

Hi George,

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 08:02:19PM -0500, George Michaelson wrote:
> The only reference to ICANN delegation process

Why should there be any reference to any ICANN delegation process?
The name is to be added to the special-use registry, taking it out of
conteplation as a DNS name.

> Secondly, The authors make a judgement call in this block that they
> feel requesting delegation is not required. I don't feel the consensus
> was that strong actually, but you know, I guess I could be wrong on
> that.

We understood the WG to have decided, in my view correctly, that this
name was exclusively for use outside the DNS.  Section 3 makes that
perfectly clear, I think:

   This document reserves the ALT label, using the [RFC6761] process,
   for use as an unmanaged pseudo-TLD namespace.  The ALT label MAY be
   used in any domain name as a pseudo-TLD to signify that this is an
   alternative (non-DNS) namespace, and should not be looked up in a DNS
   context.
 
> Thirdly the draft contains no language which actually explains why a
> TLD is required

The simple reason is to save octets, since these names need to fit in
DNS protocol slots and therefore are subject to the 255 octet limit.
We did remove that discussion somewhere along the line; I'm prepared
to add it back if you like.  Certainly the name could go under arpa,
but when we discussed it before the conclusion was that it took too
many octets that way.

> Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that
> any more'

I understand the IAB note to be about the case where the name is
intended for use with the DNS, so I don't think it is relevant to this
use case.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com