IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 1AF421A00F5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:18:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
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 CNj7y18oskpg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC301A0040 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802B91B81D8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6888F190043; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nat64.meeting.ietf.org (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:18:01 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <917146C3-BC38-4D10-AA14-C3B7A02B1193@hopcount.ca>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:17:56 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2C463623-6483-45E2-B299-75BF7C8A1A3B@nominum.com>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <97E20887-2B9C-4EAD-826B-043306605F88@fl1ger.de> <54BE75D7-E70B-46AB-93C1-042E655BB5E7@apple.com> <D0AC0015-63C3-4C03-A8D0-888C435D2775@virtualized.org> <20140226100311.E73CA1069B39@rock.dv.isc.org> <8FEAF0FC-2AC3-4F39-9825-7068AAA6E40D@hopcount.ca> <CAHw9_iJa_OhzHVCQ4L0Aj+m=zAp6w=mJpAV-_ueh9iukhb3bnA@mail.gmail.com> <20140303102535.6f276963@quill> <531450A1.8010507@bogus.com> <917146C3-BC38-4D10-AA14-C3B7A02B1193@hopcount.ca>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sTc_JPHxZ-lIbLSqoWOhyHRGyjs
Cc: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:18:06 -0000

On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
> If we assume that leaks will happen, then they will hit the root servers and there's no opportunity to sink the queries anywhere else.

This will happen whether the special-domain is under ALT or is itself a TLD.

> If we delegate ALT, then we have to decide where to. I can see this being contentious.

It seems to me that it would be highly preferable not to delegate it.   Is there an argument for doing so?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email