Re: [DNSOP] In a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream, was On the call for adoption on Special Use Names

George Michaelson <> Thu, 06 October 2016 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE9D1297CA for <>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id svvv-n9Smnqs for <>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8941129721 for <>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r64so30614209uar.3 for <>; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=L4gj2dd3KqoN5k4X09XC9R2YSl8SbRPQcMlpJlGIH7U=; b=V3CnfbUo9bE8fEohmYWu5aQrMA/jYSXwduAbLwwThgBwIBZZ+HeH0E3AvC7pSdA35T uhBAoa3Pdr0w8Ft6vw4WvkGWGTV1Fn8+BRLt54jCCeo3PJyONehpYoSdvjIoLuuACkbO 2vOXhDf0xwKxEDVD6XtprwhOefDrM/ExQl2WjTjXHmptD9uGS/KAx85LlAzPk6pzCVAo MSFsjK3xBd2D2YO6Y5DOueX6NfqTT7cbB/IBZpR7TvMapwsl6IhXK4V8P93AMafo6AMq /w5Y2Phevr99GsSm/bnaaqMWMlQwDkAn5rVM6psiWw7CMWfiLz7Qsbajt0m1uN/C2ZcT H5Mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=L4gj2dd3KqoN5k4X09XC9R2YSl8SbRPQcMlpJlGIH7U=; b=UdvhKwZB7EzLYJYFbR1F4WluTzQq0+bCcW1hgXmPjae4b65QvL1rmfd0tMZfOH12jR SsoCaLgtkPWPxvtVbhhbcToNLit8u4NyzKK3Ehce/FdeG4fTqPGOXwUEM4j3HQsmqk39 YAqi7P3eljkRXgujL8s+VDGWsyPUjxRxkNq0bLBaz/dzUW1lmDzHmRKuCzZf3Xe67TNv 9o8kT6mE6fiemENHo1I36WzVDtC+NtA4aS8pt220zjDdOl04M3ZSo9WjrgYamKZBaET8 P4HSvh8H4YhfPx6TtutHRnH+P2wRRgxE8MwePGc88xpQU3FOSO1nUg10fev0BOA6y3Zc aBiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnebV2MEpG2GHzeV1H6QPipc70rAwBLoWaXF/exjG21eRPngl5YZszIxGCsFyam7OgmDqTecKrFGaNwlw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 38mr9064857uav.116.1475792450736; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:e43d:4657:8f00:15a3]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20161004031354.11827.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 08:20:50 +1000
Message-ID: <>
To: hellekin <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] In a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream, was On the call for adoption on Special Use Names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:20:54 -0000

If you can come up with an efficient, "fair" and trusted process for a
unitary name space on domain principles (domains of scope. trees.)
that doesn't confront collisions over desires for labels at arbitrary
points in the tree, and of essential 'centrality' in decision making
logic over things especially the apex of the tree, computer science
would like to know.

Meantime, we have this tree, and we have a lot of documentation around
this tree, and we have a current bilateral view between two agencies
on this tree, and we're discussing this tree, in the context of one of
those agencies: we're using IETF infrastructure, IETF processes, IETF
methodologies, to discuss that tree.

I agree pejorative language doesn't help, and I share responsibility
for its over-use. I apologize for intemperate use of language.

Peer to peer, hash based, location-id separator, <other unknown> all
discuss concepts which collide in this model.

It might surprise you to know, that outside of this conversation I
hold different views about social equity, and who should or should not
be vested with authority in names. I try to draw distinctions between
what I think as a consumer, and a user, and what I observe from my
training and praxis.

I hold a unitary name space as a public good in very high regard. I
think p2p models, and models of probabalistic or hash naming are
interesting, but they wind up needing to map coherently to DNS names.
What I depart from, in the conversation, is how high in the DNS tree
that coherence has to vest.

A lot of your commentary goes to procedural fairness. I won't pretend
we don't have a problem there. I think you, and others in development
of novel systems have a right to feel severely disadvantaged by
process as it stands.


On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM, hellekin <> wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 09:22 AM, avri doria wrote:
>> As for the so-called toxic waste names (i really find that terminology
>> problematic)
> I agree it's a problem to use that kind of vocabulary to convey a
> technical context.
>> the so called waste pile of usurped names
> Therefore this is also a problem to call names-used-in-the-wild
> "usurped" or "squatted", because it says that there's a central body
> that assigns names, and it defines who can use them, with the
> exclusivity of any other approach.  I know this idea may sound funny to
> a lot of people given the missions of IANA and ICANN, and the existence
> of trademarks and so-called 'intellectual property', but to me, having
> an authority over who can use what names *in general*--as opposed to
> particular, specific cases (e.g., trademarks)--is akin to the Novlang
> Committee.
> Names in the DNS are sanctioned by IANA/ICANN, and those names are
> 'legitimate' in the context of Internet names.  That doesn't mean at all
> that names not sanctioned by ICANN are illegitimate, or that names
> covered by trademarks are more 'legitimate' than 'unprotected' names.
> This is all a matter of transactions and legal-firepower.  But from
> there to legitimate this transactional-belligerent perspective over any
> other (historical, cultural, incidental, ontogenetic, etc.) seems to me
> problematic and abusive.
> ==
> hk
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list