[DNSOP] Whither Registry? was Re: Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Fri, 05 June 2015 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.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 7CC891B303E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 07:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.81
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 JZxqI0-hdl1S for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 07:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA8831A884C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 07:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 07:46:24 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 07:46:24 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Whither Registry? was Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld
Thread-Index: AQHQn55klgRGeO5DYUGACP2HC+ysYg==
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:46:23 +0000
Message-ID: <D19729BE.BF43%edward.lewis@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3516345981_2675289"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/trF41KMHvQpe2zdisTLuYzIjCjI>
Subject: [DNSOP] Whither Registry? was Re: Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld
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: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:46:28 -0000

On 6/4/15, 16:07, "ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>But if you have to be prepared for identifier
>collisions anyway, what use is the registry?

This is a good starting point for discussion.  I've been passively reading
messages without much time to put together a contribution based on my
experience.

The chief function of a registry, and this is core to all registries, is
to map objects to entities.  Objects could be domain names, IP address
ranges, automobiles, plots of land.  Entities can be people, family,
organizations, corporations.  And the mappings might be for owning,
driving, taxation, maintenance, and so on.

The mapping is for all purposes 1:1.  (I suppose you could list multiple
maintainers for a route object, but thats an extension of mapping on to a
role account.)  The goal is uniqueness of the mapping.  The uniqueness may
be relative, like there being multiple "743 Evergreen Terraces" in towns
named "Springfield."  Once within a locale though, the mapping is unique.

(Registries also have other functions, but the mapping is what puts the
"registry" in "registry".)

This is what makes me scratch my head about ".alt".  It might be a very
useful idea.  (Trying to avoid saying "it might not be a bad idea" which
has a double negative in it.)  It could be a sandbox where "there's no
lifeguard."  Trying to apply any sort of order in the area is like trying
to add some of the features of TCP to UDP - the Internet's version of
alchemy.

The question I roll in my head is this - "are Internet Identifiers a
subset of Domain Names -or- are Domain Names a subset of Internet
Identifiers?"  I think the the answer to that matters greatly before
knowing whether reserving a branch of the Domain Name space for mayhem is
useful.  If Internet Identifiers are a subset of Domain Names, then
declare a branch for mayhem.  If it is the other way around, don't
subjugate the identifiers under the DNS.

As far as the cost - what's often missed is the cost of the lost
opportunity to have "www.stadt.alt." be a website. ;)