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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Sat, 25 July 2015 05:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 273151B2B1F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 w0JKJnenKnRw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7D921B2A50 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.252] (frobbit.cust.teleservice.net [85.30.128.225]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31DA4202FE; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:01:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:01:20 +0200
Message-ID: <B419D491-FF05-4C45-9D03-577886BD6A58@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1507242102150.69886@ary.lan>
References: <20150724223103.72650.qmail@ary.lan> <C7F9571D-4446-4FC9-BDB3-1AEEAD5B98DF@nominum.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1507242102150.69886@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_DFBA1A0D-04FE-47B3-B19A-E9A0DAB069B6_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5107)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/idqc0dRHjiGCQRjuXg_w7RnyZP0>
Cc: lear@cisco.com, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
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 05:01:24 -0000

On 25 Jul 2015, at 3:15, John R Levine wrote:

> That's just how the ICANN new TLD program worked.  There was a deadline by which all the applications had to be in, 1900 of them last time, and then a sequence of deadlines for the various groups doing the various evaluations.  I was on one of the technical panels, and there were applications that we failed, and had to be corrected.  Some of the isues were unexpected, e.g. the string similarity between .unicorn and .unicom, eventually resolved by .unicorn withdrawing.

First of all the process had a list of strings that one could not apply for. So first question is how IETF do believe that list is to be created. By IETF? By ICANN? In cooperation?

Secondly, we have what you talk about, various steps where different communities had the ability to send in input and reactions on the specific names.

I think personally IETF should help creating the initial black list. Before applicants do send in the strings they want.

   Patrik