Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 02 October 2016 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093B112B0C9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 11:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 CAANs0nAkNNh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 11:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CADB12B01B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 11:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3snDTc5ZbGzCwY; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:38:44 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1475433524; bh=yPqJF7zVvOBbOONgNINjcA82faEqMNlUE7aMMj3wKtw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=JItxPQUD9W12W825N/UUJ9N+HwMW/TuU0mf0CJHoYkhC3TRnZmLyKZPrfvWjrDgQ0 bXUrBKK9jM1sYjTapeH4G1CM+c7jYy5/+tmF+Env3rULI/dEkFm5vl/HxSpwPW1MwC 9SykAS1oD+4Uy8En3TL79ZKDlYBk7vKNjNhbIuPI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPwmrx4iPMDy; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:38:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:38:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.111.228.71] (unknown [193.111.228.71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5853A19C339; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:38:39 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 5853A19C339
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13G36)
In-Reply-To: <ccbf98c2-21ec-02c2-2edf-c83681baa94b@gnu.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:38:28 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53859A50-31DE-4D80-813E-F2CC2E9766E2@nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609292041280.86752@ary.qy> <CAKr6gn04Jj5ar2OhztH2uc4WpFZBZ=WKZdx-1ufdFMb9NAQupQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=zDBcbaPVi50dFJXVVSrsBuUrb52iBu4T76Y_zYuxFkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=5kAb20mGLJPmmuQCL6ta9aJn3uEdVv=gVgG9erQoKkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1km66hoc7VFPvaHi4Sc0WuQxZFtQUPjLjK_Sj6qAtZ5UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1keNUiDAUuVn97XLb3W6oH7zdZhMeNbg3h-O892+acPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKS_BQUV1sJ2vm=CSvHNJ3jH6G8VJKN1kSbc78hauPraw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1609292250500.13311@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAHw9_iKjfrEHxTA0rkzUa8Y-S_jDqvUxAqH2Yik6a2UiSYViTw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1610011445540.6522@bofh.nohats.ca> <ccbf98c2-21ec-02c2-2edf-c83681baa94b@gnu.org>
To: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/tGxgpsZ8lo5WugeVJuMVO_DNFOA>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 18:38:50 -0000


> On Oct 2, 2016, at 05:37, hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/01/2016 07:12 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> 
>> the IETF doesn't have the money for lawyers in that arena.
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> I do not think the IETF should create "Special Names" that conflict
>> with the naming process which has been delegated to ICANN.
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> The IETF giving them .onion in itself has been a very risky decision. It
>> was based on no Big Corporation having an interest in the string. With
>> .gnu people did not feel as sure about that. I think that's part of the
>> reason .gnu was not also going to make it like .onion. These decisions
>> are quicksand.
> 
> Thank you for verbalizing that.  Had it been done earlier, I'd have
> joined a commercial letter of interest of the GNU corporation who sells
> snowboards to the RFC as an appendix,

I don't think hat would have made people less nervous about it.

> in order to make a precedent that
> a technical document can be vested or vetoed by private interests based
> on legal risk and self-censorship.

That hardly matters when serious money gets involved.

> 
> Given the recurrence on this list of the term "squatting" to refer to
> real use of a non-ICANN-sanctioned TLDs,

TLD's are in DNS name space, so squatting is a perfectly fine term. The term "non-ICANN-sanctioned TLDs" is clearly misleading.

>  I wonder what kind of court would accept a post-delegation lawsuit
> in these conditions.

The process of having a lawsuit be thrown out itself can be very prohibitively expensive.

> 
>     If this
> legal risk argument is the main show-stopper, I suggest it's vaporscare
> and *not technical*

I disagree it is a vaporscare. Having been involved in a name dispute where I had pgp signed proof and still did not end up with the name, I can tell you it is all about the money you can spend on lawyers.

I do agree it is not technical. In fact, that's large been my point all along. The only technical part of this whole discussion are names that would pose a risk to the stability and security of the DNS. And I think those all have been dealt with already (and new ones are self-inflicted foot bullets we don't need to prevent)

Paul