Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 06 January 2014 15:47 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 6B3451AE048 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:47:19 -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 66EDasqEJ0EO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:47:18 -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 6B3CF1AE036 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s06FRCln083184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:27:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] 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: <20140106084626.GB27479@nic.fr>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:47:07 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F965982C-BBEA-408E-B103-6085754F231F@vpnc.org>
References: <20131231000412.GV4291@mx1.yitter.info> <52C323CE.3090909@grothoff.org> <20131231234421.GA5732@mx1.yitter.info> <52C48A4A.6090303@in.tum.de> <4C051985-6E70-463A-9672-02657842754D@vpnc.org> <20140106084626.GB27479@nic.fr>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Christian Grothoff <grothoff@in.tum.de>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
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, 06 Jan 2014 15:47:19 -0000

On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 12:00:14PM -0800,
> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote 
> a message of 16 lines which said:
> 
>> And squatters should expect that the name that they are using might
>> eventually be legitimately assigned later, possibly to someone whose
>> intentions are quite different from the squatters.
> 
> Come on, that's completely unrealistic. Can you imagine ICANN
> delegating .local to any one, after it has been used massively by
> Apple Bonjour, even before RFC 6761 sanctioned it?

No, because of the significant technical discussion of .local that happened in the IETF for many years before the new gTLD round. However...

> Can you imagine
> ICANN delegating .onion to someone, giving the number of collisions it
> would generate?

Yes, definitely. ICANN acknowledges that many of the new TLDs that are being added right now have collisions.

> ICANN did many stupid things but this one seems very
> unlikely.

We disagree (about the latter part).

>> The purpose of RFC 6761 is not to say "if you start squatting on a
>> TLD, you will be able to later get it reserved".
> 
> But it is exactly what happened with the first actual use of RFC 6761,
> .local.

If you think that a name that was squatted, extremely widely deployed, and heavily discussed in the IETF is equivalent to a name that was squatted, barely deployed, and not even specified in an RFC, that's fine. Others might disagree for somewhat obvious reasons.

--Paul Hoffman