Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sat, 25 July 2015 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970241B2A2F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 va0RWIyt785Y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9521B2A27 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2244; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437798955; x=1439008555; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=ek5wR95F+4er4m34UIz5Q+oF7uVJzTpQ4hQy9m8riac=; b=KTBmf2OzO+lZZCJxpjE/D3MSnAZrRxNMhVX7fmOZIej9m7yN+jc4blLc 2gdLAULLyLMYbZ5k0L0IX7EelR38TeStthg9WFvvtGnE07YFyx9iifJni LwhmmMLClK3gZgiAx3QG1xQyh2WFjvwsr4lhlOTYBNe90ZTTb8tdfW2dr 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A5AwDCEbNV/xbLJq1chBaDX7hNCYdwAoF9FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAwEjVRELGAkWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAgBAYgiCLkTlg0BAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEbi06FDoJpgUMBBIxFiCSCOIFXiDCBRYQdgnCQVCZkgVuBQDyCfQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,542,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="599603218"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2015 04:35:53 +0000
Received: from [10.61.207.161] ([10.61.207.161]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6P4Znfe020255; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 04:35:50 GMT
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20150724223103.72650.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55B31224.4020200@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:35:48 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150724223103.72650.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="E9OgmC9FW41arGCBRjOglodAHSVgHURBl"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UBsxNLdLGNfzoXd7xv8gWRbkbpQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 04:35:55 -0000


On 7/25/15 12:31 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> As Ted highlighted, John has thrown up a straw man that nobody would
>> ever reasonably propose (the IESG being consulted on every name), where
>> that has nothing to do with 6761 or any other existing or contemplated
>> process.
>>
>> Can we please at least stay within the realm of reality?
> Well, OK.  If the plan isn't that we get to look at every name in the
> next round, what names do we get to look at?

We don't.  Why would we?  It's better simply to stick with a list of
known problematic names – and keep that list relatively small.  For
instance...

>
> It doesn't seem likely that we can prepare a complete set of names
> with substantial informal use or other technical problems.  Some of
> the problems depend on context.  For example, there is a lot of old
> CPE that leaks queries for .BELKIN.  But maybe if a TLD application
> were from the same company that made the leaky devices, that would be
> OK.
>

I hesitate to get into a pseudo- 6761 application process, but if it's a
problem now, then we should discuss it now and not wait for
applications.  I don't know if .belkin rises to the level where we
should seriously consider it, but I know some people who have some views
on that ;-)

Eliot