Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 02 January 2014 23:02 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC051AD75F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:02:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 XbTOmGUJuX7W for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AD71AD73E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s02N1ui2015174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:01:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <52C5DA5C.1090605@grothoff.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 15:02:00 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4BE81E5D-4A35-4FCE-8119-4C676AE610B1@vpnc.org>
References: <20131231000412.GV4291@mx1.yitter.info> <52C323CE.3090909@grothoff.org> <20131231234421.GA5732@mx1.yitter.info> <52C48A4A.6090303@in.tum.de> <4C051985-6E70-463A-9672-02657842754D@vpnc.org> <52C5DA5C.1090605@grothoff.org>
To: Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:02:28 -0000
On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> wrote: > On 01/02/2014 09:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Jan 1, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Grothoff <grothoff@in.tum.de> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, my point is that if you expect everybody to first get an RFC >>> through to document everything they are doing, expect squatting. >> >> We do. And squatters should expect that the name that they are using >> might eventually be legitimately assigned later, possibly to someone >> whose intentions are quite different from the squatters. This is how >> the IETF has worked for over 20 years. The purpose of RFC 6761 is >> not to say "if you start squatting on a TLD, you will be able to >> later get it reserved". It is to say "if there are legitimate errors >> in TLD use, those can be dealt with". > > Well, let's just say my reading of the intent of RFC 6761 is different. I'm interested to hear what others think. >> It seems that one of the themes of your responses here is "the TLDs >> are now being used in software and we won't change that software >> ever". > > You need to learn about about free software here, as you're assuming > that anyone really is in a position to say that. I didn't say you were in a position to say that; I said that it sounded like you were saying you were. > These are GPL projects, > thus anyone can change that software in any way they feel like. I'm > merely suggesting that my personal opinion is that such a patch is > unlikely to be widely adopted. You're welcome to prove me wrong, writing > the patch should be hardly any work, after all. Quite true, but irrelevant to your request for the names. >> If that is a correct reading, then there really isn't any reason to >> move forwards on these requests. The folks using the names are >> squatting, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of >> the application, much less the outcome of ICANN later allocating >> those TLDs to someone else. > > Didn't Apple squat on ".local" and get it reserved using RFC 6761? No. > I > think you're are in total denial of facts that have been discussed in > this context on this very list already. Or, we simply disagree about what happened. > >> On the other hand, if the software using the currently-squatted TLDs >> are willing to change the names, there is room for discussion. One >> possibility for RFC 6761 is that an application can specify a use for >> a non-allocated TLD, and a random string (short, typeable, but >> unlikely to be wanted by anyone in the ICANN space) can be generated >> for that. So, instead of ".bit" (which has high value), ".gp4x7" >> could be allocated. That gets the community what they want (a string >> that ICANN is prevented from later allocating) and follows the >> spirit of RFC 6761. > > Sorry, Hollywood-math about the 'value' of a name has also already been > discussed. However, I'm willing to agree that ".bit" has value to > society --- because it is already used by Namecoin. A name that is not > even used has no established value. And we disagree here as well, but at least it is now more clear what you are thinking in your application. --Paul Hoffman
- [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothoff-ie… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Christian Grothoff
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Christian Grothoff
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Guangqing Deng
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Andrew Sullivan
- [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-spec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Christian Grothoff
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Hoffman
- [DNSOP] special names process & context Re: More … Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer