Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 6/15/2020 4:30 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>> On 16 Jun 2020, at 8:12 am, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>>
>>> 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administration
>>> of ISO 3166 and its use in the ICANN context, and suggests to operators and implementers that the ISO3166 user-assigned 2-letter strings could be
>>> suitable for local use in domain names. It does not include any IANA actions to update any registry or protocol element. So claims that this draft
>>> reserves names or attempts to override ICANN policy about “TLDs” seem premature.
>> In a way, this is even worse. It is "marking" some TLD strings in a
>> special way, without any official IANA registry or ICANN policy anywhere.
>>
>> We have already seen discussion on how this could lead to increased root
>> zone traffic, privacy leaks to public DNS, and the possible requirement
>> of adding things to AS112.
> +1

Geoff,

I am old enough to know that we should never challenge worse, as in
"root traffic cannot possibly get much worse than what it already is".
But then, I truly wonder whether Roy's suggestion would make the problem
worse. At worse, the IETF position would be shifting from "we don't
recognize the need for private domains so use whatever you think of" to
"if you really want to use a private domain, use one of these reserved
2-letter codes." It would seem that using a small set of code would
increase the efficacy of negative caching, and would thus tend to
diminish the traffic to the root.

And now, for a "Carthago delenda est" moment, let's point out that
almost 50% of the traffic to the root comes from the Chrome browser
making up randomly named TLD to probe whether the local ISP is hijacking
NXDomain replies. If we really want to reduce the leaks to the root,
there is that.

-- Christian Huitema