IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld

"Schanzenbach, Martin" <mschanzenbach@posteo.de> Tue, 02 August 2022 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>
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 F13D5C13CCFA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 06:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=posteo.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GZ7XBqSDiGvX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 06:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BFBFC13CCC6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 06:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9804D240029 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:22:10 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1659446531; bh=DNWouyNq9YXGZJeZ9OZgoKrx19VvsKZf2lYf/1Irs2g=; h=Subject:From:Date:Cc:To:From; b=WUhgZ8Fc+r4P+44oFkfMsgbsjLeTLpwDI10OCF4BtRoCV2k9YoZituI2tIcs6qvoV cAKH7QCrr4Kq9x59yz9JMc8UEcWSasujlQ24pTEnfi+H4m1H6LiYWIFfEAWKCfee4D BDnvh1AI2YSgLh6xXkfzufxPjShVvFU3db98ao7fSHO01e2TJh+bhLt05u6R4gbiAe 5TKa6APOM/TyLuj5NsLyT0xdNGwY5NTJbR201E4uOqPsHz8066JLpk7OxwHWcr8iG6 En9s1NM6wARhEqy1jsvKfja5oQkpyB5zJqUJmlh0qBBgVk78adT8qPXzRFkDMPHkct e2ekGRzy6ItBg==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4LxwdF5DCVz6tnC; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:22:09 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: "Schanzenbach, Martin" <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>
In-Reply-To: <dff75878-f5c2-bebe-6ea7-87579c578556@nic.cz>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 13:22:08 +0000
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F59BD67C-9AC8-4E3E-B624-7ECC139BA0B5@posteo.de>
References: <91abb9ac-9d3b-87bf-5639-174581d625fd@rfc-editor.org> <a86f82af-9512-8f0a-398a-73cc9b209d8a@nic.cz> <1659440963-sup-4641@werkbank> <dff75878-f5c2-bebe-6ea7-87579c578556@nic.cz>
To: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wRxsBAIl29gcrkeJJobmAMezZ-I>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 13:22:20 -0000


> On 2. Aug 2022, at 14:39, Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz> wrote:
> 
> On 02/08/2022 13.53, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
>> This is not an oversight (altough I have to admin it did not occur to me
>> that this a valid DNS TLD at the time of writing).  [...]
>> 
> Oh, I understood that this DNSOP thread - notably the first post - originated as an attempt to reduce collisions between GNS pet names and DNS names.  Probably by standardizing .alt (or similar) as special in DNS and encouraging that GNS pet names nest under it.
> 
> If I got this wrong, I suspect it might be helpful to restate the DNSOP-related intentions more clearly.
> 

You understand correctly and maybe my comments are a bit too exaggerated at times.

The draft as it exists now has obvious collisions with the DNS namespace. A direct result from our previous efforts wrt RFC6761; there is just no sub-namespace to use for us. (See discussions years ago)
So, we mostly separated the technical protocol design from the namespace issue.
This (understandably) lead to discussions with the ISE (and others) and now also to (possible) issues in the IESG conflict review as part of our independent submission.
The idea was to connect with dnsop in order to establish if the ".alt"-draft could help here.
If there was a consensus over the ".alt" draft or other guidance on how to specify alternate name systems (and their namespaces), then I would assume this would affect the considerations of the conflict review and potentially require us to modify the draft accordingly.
Which is why we consulted with ISE whether it makes sense to participate in this discussion and possibly offer draft-schanzen-gns as a possible first "customer" of a potential new ".alt"-RFC.
So, you probably need to differentiate between the GNS draft as it is defined now and how it could potentially look like.
I think this is also why ISE said in another post that it may be wise to consider this as an opportunity to settle this issue. However, it seems quite entrenched.

BR
Martin

> --Vladimir | knot-resolver.cz
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email