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

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

I am not personally convinced by "there are too many people committed"
arguments. I never have been, and I think the chilling effect of this has
been seen time and again.

There has always been "too many people" doing things. Claiming the dead
hand of history prevents us from changing course or deploying new things is
just wrong.

1 create onion.something.else and mark .onion as suitable for future use
under gTLD, if not now
2 release new TOR code and declare sunset period
3 wait for sunset period
4 stop blocking release of .onion

We don't expect people to use rlogin or rsh any more. Protocols move on.


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:54 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> (just for full closure - I'm the IETF technical liaison to the ICANN
> board, but taking that hat off here)
>
>
> On 2/3/14 11:23 PM, "Mark Andrews" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> >In message <[e-mail]>, Joe Abley
> >writes:
> >>
> >> On 2014-02-03, at 11:15, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Feb 3, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "squatted" is not a bad word here. In the physical world, squatters
> >> >> are often people who do not have the money to rent a home, because
> >> >> some rich people put the price of the housing too high. Here, you
> >>will
> >> >> have trouble convincing the users of Tor or Namecoin that it is right
> >> >> to pay 185 000 $ for a TLD and that, if they cannot afford it, they
> >> >> have to stay in the slums.
> >> >>
> >> >> [End of political rant, sorry]
> >> >
> >> > Your political rant is, however, off-base. Assume for the moment that
> >> > the Tor folks had registered oniontld.fr for a relatively small
> >>amount of
> >> > money. It could have all of the attributes of .onion: you could
> >>hard-wire
> >> > it into local resolvers, some requests for it would leak to the DNS
> >>and
> >> > therefore possibly be trackable, and so on. For the purposes given in
> >> > draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names, unsquatted FQDNs would work
> >> > just as well as squatted TLDs.
> >>
> >> I made that point somewhat earlier (but my example was onion.eff.org or
> >> something).
> >>
> >> The reasonable response to my instance of that observation was that
> >> there's a significant deployed base of users already making use of
> >>.onion
> >> [1], and we don't have a time machine that we're aware of [2] to allow
> >> that to be fixed.
> >>
> >> Despite the enduring (and endearing, perhaps) optimism that the new gTLD
> >> programme would eventually bear fruit, I don't think it's unreasonable
> >>to
> >> think that in 2002 [3] a new gTLD wasn't really a practical option to
> >> choose not to take.
> >>
> >> So squatting doesn't sound right to me.
> >
> >They choose to use a TLD.  There were plenty of people saying "Do
> >NOT use a TLD for your private namespace, use a namespace you own"
> >in 2002 whether it was for a protocol or a internal network.
> >
> >For $20 a year or less they could have registered a name in just
> >about any TLD and avoided the issue.
>
> I think we have to distinguish here between the "new squatters" and the
> "old squatters" and the reasons for "squatting". For instance in corp and
> home, the installed base seems to be quite large. It comes from equipment
> and hardware that might not be easily replaceable and not really under a
> single organization's control. You cannot change that and ignoring it
> might cause harm for the Internet.
>
> The new technologies (gnu/onion/...) seem to be different. First of all,
> they don't use DNS but something else. Therefore, there should be no
> collisions. It seems more that delegating them to the DNS would harm those
> technologies rather than DNS or Internet getting harmed. The only
> relationship to the DNS seems to be that they happen to have a structure
> that is similar to the FQDN.
>
> Anyways, I have been following this discussion now for a while. It seems
> to me that the discussion is not really converging. I would blame it at
> least partly on RFC6761. Though, RFC6761 isn't that old, it was written in
> a time before the new gTLD round was ongoing.
>
> Rather than discussing the individual strings, maybe we should consider to
> discuss the principles under which TLDs can be reserved for special use
> and consider a re-spin or an update to RFC6761.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonne.
>
> >
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> [1] https://metrics.torproject.org
> >> [2] =
> >>
> >>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/02/stephen-hawking-time-travel_n_
> >>1=
> >> 643488.html
> >> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#History
> >--
> >Mark Andrews, ISC
> >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> >PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
> >_______________________________________________
> >DNSOP mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>