Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Jelte Jansen <> Mon, 03 March 2014 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFD41A019F for <>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:57:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.453
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QSvfM63CWrIB for <>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5101A0114 for <>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:57:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt;; s=sidn_nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=9E8Y4xUchUOG0RM8c+JCO9GIQbQlxnBiApGz6J9P4Nw=; b=B4Etjcwhlvrz7+cqL/2yzmOxA4CA2610zp44ElV60BRekm6vZf5Rj51cLb7pwimswuaJdrQrrJGxjuU25MBE94fPsOYWQ0JtSGoFSLiN9ebOvZ7ZDlCqd6jF0lsiZMbNxKTk/oUH+dS6abLnyk3lKtSxAYzCh4YZe9YgDFABoSk=
Received: from kahubcasn01.SIDN.local ([]) by with ESMTP id s23DuPHR032361-s23DuPHT032361 (version=TLSv1.0 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=CAFAIL); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:56:25 +0100
Received: from [] ( by kahubcasn01.SIDN.local ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:56:22 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:56:20 +0000
From: Jelte Jansen <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20140303102535.6f276963@quill> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
Cc: Stuart Cheshire <>, Norbert Bollow <>, Tony Finch <>, " WG" <>, David Conrad <>, Joel Jaeggli <>, Joe Abley <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:57:17 -0000

On 03/03/2014 01:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Tony Finch <> wrote:
>> As well as Joe's AS112 argument there is also the question of DNSSEC
>> validation - but perhaps we don't want non-DNS names to make any kind of
>> sense in this respect... cf. .local
> Indeed, it doesn't make much sense to me that special-use names that are not intended to be resolved using the DNS should be validateable via DNSSEC.   If they can be validated, it would have to be using whatever protocol is being used for name resolution (if any).


This is something I asked about at the app session, and have been
wondering; (why) are we worried about non-dns names at all? More
importantly, where do we draw the line? "A domain by any other name?"

Is anything sequence of characters that happens to maybe contain a dot a
domain name? Is it that it *might* end up in some code path that tries
to resolve it, even though the normal use doesn't use (the global) DNS
at all?

To make a crazy example; the left-hand side of an e-mail address also
contains dots, but we're not worried about those somehow ending up in a
resolution call. Neither were we worried about '' being
resolved (and it does).

I'd think that a domain name is only a domain name when whatever
protocol it is defined in defines it as a domain name (or whatever
undefined protocol uses it in actual dns resolution). What a non-domain
name looks like shouldn't matter.