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

28.01.2011 17:15, SM wrote:
> 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.
I recommended the authors the same in my previous message.
>
> 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.
While reading the document I really got confused seeing such beginning 
of Introduction.  That would be better to drop all such confusing 
phrases about IPv4 addresses.

Another issue I'd like to raise is references.  Do the authors consider 
making all references Informative as appropriate?  Personally I think 
the following docs. should be referenced normatively: RFC 1034 and RFC 
5226.  Moreover, shouldn't the document update RFC 2606?

Finally, I'd like to propose to create the sub-registry in th cerated 
registry connected with 'Reserved Top Level Domains' for tracking these 
issues along with other special-use domain names.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>