Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Tony Finch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> David Conrad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Haven't we been here before (e.g., .bitnet/.csnet/.uucp)?
> To me this sounds a lot like private namespaces in the DNS which
> correspond to private networks - the analogy being that these special
> non-DNS names often correspond to special overlay networks (as in Tor and
> GNUnet).

Yes, except they aren't really private -- they're public but only if you know/have installed the right magic bits.

> So you need to have the p2p software in order to use the overlay network
> and to resolve the names. If your system doesn't know about the
> specialness of the name then it won't resolve properly but you would not
> be able to use it if it did resolve properly.

Yes. And, of course, "won't resolve properly" most likely means sending a query to the root and getting back an NXDOMAIN. Last I checked, the "L" root server is getting about 2000 queries per second for ".local" (about 7 Mbps in DNSSEC signed outbound traffic if my math is right). To be honest, given the crap that hits the roots these days, I'm not sure this matters all that much but it probably should be a consideration.

> If an application needs the special connectivity, then it needs to require
> the special support software.

My concern is that given the names in question look like domain names, particularly now in the days of new gTLDs, even though they aren't _really_ domain names (in the sense that they can't be looked up in the domain name system), they'll be treated like domain names leading to confusion/interoperability problems. If I send my Pointed Haired Boss a note referencing pictures of him with farm animals on photos.onion, he may try to click/cut-paste that "domain name" in a browser. If he doesn't have the .onion overlay software installed and configured, he's likely to be disappointed/confused/angry (at least with .local if my PHB is an English speaker, he might have a hint). The DNS community spent a lot of time back in the days of alternate root proposals arguing this sort of confusion would be a bad thing. I figure it's still bad.

Regards,
-drc