Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 05 July 2017 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C75131D4F for <>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 dFfOvrF_x-yh for <>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B29A9131AB1 for <>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 32so192186607qtv.1 for <>; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=AoLCXvpYs03z+5hHrwXCBFfDkWQHqqs0CF/68CnSRpI=; b=Z2ZQ4YEIkFGE3HfbMY+Fesf2+9yMDaVe+qiVIrYrCaZLIz5LVgxUD3H74OsnP5kkJQ daPuMFqyEftYADx1Z7isyx2lX2T53+cyAZPcDku0yF4x99YyeWnu+SqbQXw6afPLrJf2 3Zt/xlSwbXNj9VgUVxtkfbsG/QpdZYpRh8GKiL40ifT3C4ltrXbRxzQSXBtxvSnF1B5Y hVLw3E9zk8TfZ+U1KuzV+PIZlK80ky9zq/Hgx+XlUPLtunshq8Y8yPGVr9OmoPIqCe4N 0jKxfe9pMk/nvhdO3KNSqE08IQ4Xf1DNIsfcKYTXfJ2o02lExzmvZOcYRwweKOMLjSRN ITkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=AoLCXvpYs03z+5hHrwXCBFfDkWQHqqs0CF/68CnSRpI=; b=XXpfl8krpMeSQA0ZIZ8sCpFmr9j5NCf5Ra0NziABfjixetOI0t4vhSim81mGbxbA+v jDtBdVWjhJo9agJZZhPQ+XOA5pV63Q7ZZcT13Dx1J5x95ZpTEnA0Dt86hso417GR1+cy uAX04pSykeLtx6gE8Chv5XPPzTzaPp4tLSjPtrv9nUUXUGRxKyUwrgfX+xIhJ0tjfY2S yzBRcrrHVF4sDdLFb0xGw7u0oOnJTk+SxK1hHW0Chpa9dtMH4TL4DLOmJjCKP9fj3PY2 fE7RRlJK3drsJzJU58N6SyO1g6qO5ZVE4xRk95g7fPUPO/63T+Yashvk8PoPIyXupzr2 LbyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112AmI69GxrZ2CdOXxxcMFdUvxCf6Res/TpckmUs6NBqjCMi2B7A HwV4Ht/Wk2Qd2zOmgABsgQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w4mr4753746qte.188.1499275520892; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro-6.ether.lede.home ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y6sm17098619qky.1.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_45302548-BEDA-49AB-A75A-73AAB8EEC7EC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 13:25:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170704170910.66459.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <>
References: <20170704170910.66459.qmail@ary.lan>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 17:25:24 -0000

On Jul 4, 2017, at 1:09 PM, John Levine <> wrote:
> Special use TLDs are the North Korea of the IETF.  Everyone agrees
> they're a problem, but there's no agreement about what to do, with
> attitudes ranging from resigned acceptance to aggressive
> countermeasures.
> The countermeasures all have problems.  Some make implausible
> assumptions like knowing in advance where all the missile launchers,
> er, stunt resolvers are.  Others would take strong action that would
> produce a toxic rain of collateral damage on their allies.

Actually, one of the reasons we did a problem statement document and not a "why are these useful" document as Randy has suggested is that there is no consensus even that special-use names are a problem.   A lot of people think that it's gTLDs that are the problem, not special-use names: gTLDs, by allocating names that ought to have been special-use names, have created a serious problem in that we can no longer use special-use names freely, and that not all uses of special-use names remain possible.

I don't mean to open a discussion into that topic here—I realize that there is no consensus on it, and that this position is not shared by various people, yourself included.   I just want to point out that you've expressed it as universally true that people think special-use names are bad, and that is not in fact the case: if it were, we wouldn't need to publish this document.