Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existence of non-existent domains

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 05 January 2010 18:35 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=OFyggluUDuzIUFXDAAFk/xr+qBc4iQnPplPca8un33i/qzFkmccVK48CrfXk52xqS NesTTFb3/jQ43Zne/pTwrM8/KBefi+8+JAsOWpVi7UwC21BZgA0Pj02q90jjbs0OHA2 u3PGyO9Mgk9JwipdQfM2zyDtJlI7AzTY2xX2GHI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100105064718.02c26e80@resistor.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:31:24 -0800
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existence of non-existent domains
In-Reply-To: <202705b1001050539q1ba5d869jf158618129aecf2b@mail.gmail.com >
References: <20100105062002.68193.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <202705b1001050539q1ba5d869jf158618129aecf2b@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Precedence: list

At 05:39 05-01-2010, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>On the table at 2.1.4 you need to add LATNIC that seems to be also
>reserved by ICANN, not sure why they missed it on the DAG but it's on
>every single Registry Agreement.

PSO might also have to be added then.  According to information 
published by IANA, these two names are still reserved.

"Transparency, once lost, is hard to regain" [1].  We could reflect 
on that as we discuss about reserved names.  Some people might argue that:

   "The Domain Name System (DNS) provides an essential service on the
    Internet, mapping structured names to a variety of different types of" [2]
    money making schemes.

I can only hope that the domain name policy makers have read RFC 
4367.  Defining a registry for reserved names can be a perilous 
exercise.  There are different viewpoints about whether the authority 
to do so is the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet 
Architecture Board, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers or the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.  There's the 
protocol angle where RFC 2860 gets invoked as in BCP 52.  There's RFC 
2606 which predates RFC 2860.  There was a draft in 2005 
(draft-eastlake-2606bis) which raised questions similar to the 
current draft about reserved names.  There was also another draft 
(draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds) written in 2008 which was an 
attempt to update RFC 2606 based on recent ICANN changes.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt
2. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4367.txt

Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existe… John Levine
Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existe… Jorge Amodio
Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existe… John R. Levine
Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existe… SM