Re: [Internetgovtech] off topic: labels (was Re: Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available)

Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Mon, 21 July 2014 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A777F1A023E for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
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 fJj9q0PJFToV for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from abenaki.wabanaki.net (nike.wampumpeag.net [67.42.198.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 032A51A000E for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frog.local ([67.42.198.93]) by abenaki.wabanaki.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s6LKKbiH084011 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net)
Message-ID: <53CD760F.4090902@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:20:31 -0700
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internetgovtech@iab.org
References: <A193D048-2B67-469A-93BA-C61BB362DA75@vigilsec.com> <53CD1E8A.1060804@acm.org> <FA4238C4-ADDC-435F-9591-E3B074C2F6F6@vigilsec.com> <53CD2300.5050307@acm.org> <20140721143105.GH16966@mx1.yitter.info> <53CD4A4B.4090507@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <20140721174703.GB17107@mx1.yitter.info> <53CD6CBC.40804@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <20140721200823.GG17453@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20140721200823.GG17453@mx1.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/lUwKyc82w9E-1cq7VASQoYGwDxM
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] off topic: labels (was Re: Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available)
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:21:45 -0000

Yeah, that was a mistake. If you ever get around to responding to the 
main point that would be ... well, too late at this point.

On 7/21/14 1:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Since you asked on list, I'll reply, but I don't think this is the
> right list to pursue this discussion and if we're going to have to do
> that I suggest perhaps DNSOP or the dns-operations OARC list or
> perhaps dnsext@ietf.org (which is still open), depending on whether
> you want to talk about protocol or operations.
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:40:44PM -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
>> P.S. Exactly what is wrong with 5 octet labels? With 4 octet labels?
>> With 3 octet labels? And finally, with 2 octet labels?
> Nothing, in principle.  In practice, it depends.  You might want to
> have a look at RFC 6912.  Even though it was particularly about
> Unicode code points for U-labels, the general principles outlined
> there are useful in other ways too.
>
>> P.P.S. Exactly what is wrong with a terminal label consisting only
>> of characters in the 0-9 range, that is not completely cured by a
>> requirement that the next subordinate label contain one or more
>> characters from the range g-z?
> Well, the actual terminal label cannot contain any characters at all,
> but I think you knew that and meant the second-to-last label
> (conventionally called a TLD).  So, first, there's actually no
> technical way to require what you're saying, really.  That's what
> "delegation" means.  You could do it with contracts, though.
>
> But what you're really saying is that the heuristic implied in RFC
> 1123 might break.  That seems like an extremely incautious thing to
> do, and therefore a responsible operator of the root zone wouldn't do
> it.  Technology is not infinitely plastic: once you have deployed
> something, it affects the world.  In the case of the DNS, the way it
> has affected the world is partly based in the assumptions people have
> about what their software may depend on.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>