On 5/6/15, 2:07 PM, "Suzanne Woolf"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
c) The requests we're seeing for .onion and the other p2p names already
in use are arguing that they should get their names to enable their
technologies with minimal disruption to their installed base. While the
requesters may well have valid need for the names to be recognized, there is
still a future risk of name collision or other ambiguity. The IETF is being
asked to recognize the pre-existing use of these names. Does this scale to
future requests?
Beyond that, does it end up being a cheap way to avoid the ICANN process of
creating a new gTLD. For example, I am not aware that anything prevents the ToR
project from applying to ICANN for the .onion gTLD. So from one perspective,
would more people just deploy into an unused namespace and then later lay claim
the the namespace retroactively based on their use (gTLD-squatting)? This could
be quite messy at scale, and I am not sure the IETF has a process to deal with
and consider competing uses.
2. In the particular cases of home/corp/mail, ICANN has studied
the possibilities of name collisions, and decided not to delegate those names
at this time. The proposal is that the IETF reserve those names for unspecified
special use permanently. It seems that an IETF action on those names is
redundant, unless it’s in opposition to some action contemplated under ICANN
policy (for which there is no apparent mechanism). Is the possibility of the
same names considered under multiple policies a problem?
By ‘redundant’ do you mean the IETF should take no action? That seems to leave
those names in a no-mans-land that could be problematic in the long-term, and
the uncertainty could inhibit experimentation/investment in the home networking
space.
I’d rather see the IETF consider these names which are widely used and possibly
add them to a new RFC, which then can be entered into and referred to from the
IANA special-use domain name registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml
3. An IETF precedent to add names to the special use names
registry based on the risk of name collision could easily change the dynamics
around namespace policy for TLDs in the root zone, e.g. by providing incentives
to “game the system”. Is this acceptable?
It is indeed a risk. But it seems there are some names that have been widely
used for some time – and by a wide variety of applications and
operators/networks – to make sense for consideration. But I think you are right
to point out the risk (see my comments above) - so the IETF should probably
have quite simple and brief criteria and try to limit this strictly – and
perhaps even make it a one-time activity.
3. Moving forward: What should we do here? What other ideas might be useful?
Should we be considering RFC 6761bis? What might an improved registration
policy for this registry look like?
Why not just a new RFC? It always seems like a bit of a mess to update such an
extensive existing RFC (but I defer to the RFC process gods). ;-)
Jason
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
