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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 03 February 2014 16:15 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 B68061A0035 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:15:16 -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 t3zn11dwoVfO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:15:15 -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 921B81A002B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-67.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s13FtBjC099724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:55:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-67.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.67] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
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: <20140203151958.GA1673@nic.fr>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:15:10 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6BE00F1A-1F8D-4B30-A5C7-10E7466109C2@vpnc.org>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <97E20887-2B9C-4EAD-826B-043306605F88@fl1ger.de> <72A3E4AE-F116-4496-BADB-5973DEC46598@vpnc.org> <C2A6625B-BEF7-41D6-B8BB-B870694CAFD9@fl1ger.de> <555B2F7B-7D29-43BC-AADC-1EA65A17DEF0@hopcount.ca> <EE6063EE-A69E-4460-91B4-862096A00F0F@fl1ger.de> <20140130004530.C660CE086E0@rock.dv.isc.org> <20140203151958.GA1673@nic.fr>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
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 Feb 2014 16:15:17 -0000

On Feb 3, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>; wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:45:30AM +1100,
> Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>; wrote 
> a message of 74 lines which said:
> 
>> The squatted tld's used by software .onion, .bit etc could be
>> migrated to a new namespaces.
> 
> :-)
> 
> "squatted" is not a bad word here. In the physical world, squatters
> are often people who do not have the money to rent a home, because
> some rich people put the price of the housing too high. Here, you will
> have trouble convincing the users of Tor or Namecoin that it is right
> to pay 185 000 $ for a TLD and that, if they cannot afford it, they
> have to stay in the slums.
> 
> [End of political rant, sorry]

Your political rant is, however, off-base. Assume for the moment that the Tor folks had registered oniontld.fr for a relatively small amount of money. It could have all of the attributes of .onion: you could hard-wire it into local resolvers, some requests for it would leak to the DNS and therefore possibly be trackable, and so on. For the purposes given in draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names, unsquatted FQDNs would work just as well as squatted TLDs.

--Paul Hoffman