[DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Fri, 23 September 2016 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81ED12B87C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 05:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.517
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9E8hKTryDFV5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 05:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC19812B8A9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 05:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ( by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 05:15:30 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 05:15:30 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: More on Special Use Domain Registry
Thread-Index: AQHSFZQszwmM2qaOpUq35HtUo4msKA==
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:15:29 +0000
Message-ID: <3CE0A36F-58C7-4FAF-B804-346E167D6AEC@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.1.160916
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3557463328_619764775"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/tV8nQZqI0OjcKiqexBFYev1PsRc>
Subject: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:15:35 -0000

I have gotten the sense of a belief that IANA (the IANA functions office) runs many registries for the IETF and they are not controversial and because of this, the issues surrounding the Special Use Domain Name registry are all fluff and no substance.  But the Special Use Domain Name registry is a special case, it is not a run-of-the-mill IANA registry.

The registry is special because the items registered are not bound in a narrow scope.  The registered items (names) are used in many different contexts.  This is opposed to protocol parameter registries, where the registered item has a very narrow meaning.  E.g., "MX" as a mnemonic for the numeric value of 15 in the registry for resource records is not treated as a conflict with "MX" as the two-letter code for Mexico (not an IANA registry).  (Ignoring well known use problems with dig.)

There are registries run by IANA like the Special Use Domain Name registry when it comes to scope.  To name two the IPv4 and IPv6 address registries.  Addresses and other number parameters (AS numbers) are used in narrow contexts but are also seen in other places.  The point is that these registries are supported by well-developed policies for entering items into registries, the Regional Internet Registries have agreed to pan-RIR, global policies on these registries.

This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the discussions on the topic.  Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a reflection that the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic.  That is not an insult because there's a significant difference between the function of registration (of anything) and the function of the DNS system.  Those two topics are often confused and I think that is happening again.

If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period and the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it is understandable.  Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the roster of other work represents "time better spent" means that this work could be pushed off the table.  However, the discussion ought to be resumed somewhere else.  I think that the Special Use Domain Name registry is needed but as it is currently defined, inadequate.