Re: Last Call: <draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01.txt> (Special-Use Domain Names) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 15:00 17-01-11, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'Special-Use Domain Names'
>   <draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>    Abstract
>
>    This document describes what it means to say that a DNS name is
>    reserved for special use, when reserving such a name is appropriate,
>    and the procedure for doing so.
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

The intended status of draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01 is 
Standards Track.  BCP would have been a better fit is the aim of this 
draft is to create a registry and a procedure for reserved DNS names.

In Section 1:

   'For example, IPv4 addresses 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255 are
    multicast addresses [RFC2606], with 224.0.0.1 being the "all hosts"'

I suggest dropping that reference as example refers to IPv4 addresses 
discussed in RFC 5735; RFC 2606 is about Reserved Top Level DNS Names.

 From Section 2:

   "Similarly, if a domain name has special properties that affect the
    way hardware and software implementations handle the name, which
    apply universally regardless of what network the implementation may
    be connected to, then that may be a candidate for having the IETF
    declare the name to be a Special-Use Domain Name and specify what
    special treatment implementations should give to that name."

That sounds like a good argument for the IETF declare a domain name 
as "Special Use".  Does ".local" qualify for registration 
(draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-13)?

Are domain names as defined under this proposal to be considered as 
Internet protocol parameters?

 From Section 3:

   "If it is determined that special handling of a name is required in
    order to implement some desired new functionality, then an IETF
    "Standards Action" RFC [RFC5226] needs to be published describing the
    new functionality ..."

In other words, if an author can get a Proposed Standard through the 
IETF process, he or she can get a registration for a Special-Use Domain Name.

In Section 7:

   'How should DNS Registrars treat requests to register this reserved
    domain name? Should such requests be denied? Should such requests
    be allowed, but only to a specially-designated entity? (For
    example, the name "www.example.org" is reserved for documentation
    examples and is not available for registration; however, the name
    is in fact registered; and there is even a web site at that name,
    which states circularly that the name is reserved for use in
    documentation and cannot be registered!)'

That would be:

    Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
    Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY
    Whois Server: whois.iana.org
    Referral URL: http://res-dom.iana.org
    Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
    Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
    Status: clientDeleteProhibited
    Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Status: clientUpdateProhibited
    Updated Date: 26-mar-2004
    Creation Date: 14-aug-1995
    Expiration Date: 13-aug-2011

By the way, res-dom.iana.org is not responding on port 80.

In the IANA Considerations Section, 
draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names creates a registry of Special-Use 
Domain Names.  It is customary to populate a new registry with legacy 
entries such as the domain names mentioned in RFC 2606.

Regards,
-sm