On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ed, > > First-- apologies for the misunderstanding. > > On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: >> >> Trying to be more clear, I have in the past imagined that today someone is >> inventing a new communications technology, in 6 months will need to cobble >> an identifier space and in 2 years the IETF-connected crowd detects >> significant deployment of this and needs to decide whether to register a >> TLD to avoid name collisions. I've been told that this wouldn't happen >> because the IETF will have rules - which I am skeptical would "prevent" >> the situation from happening. > > I don't think we have "rules" or even guidelines now that have any chance of > preventing it. > > I agree we'll never prevent it completely; it's the nature of the DNS and the > internet that people can do things with names and they don't have to ask the > IETF first. > > But I don't think it's impossible that we'll be able to provide guidance, > such that developers who follow it are reasonably sure of avoiding the > various types of collisions and ambiguities we're concerned about-- and such > that there's a clear basis for saying "You're doing something outside of the > guidance we can provide about how names work in the internet, you're on your > own."
<Warren points at ALT-TLD> Yup, we will not be able to prevent people from using an identifier space that looks like a DNS name not rooted in the DNS, but we *can* provide them with guidance and a safe place to do this sort of thing, namely under the .alt TLD. > >> To underscore - I am not against the innovation. I am urging that the >> processes put in place are future proof by being "reactionary" - reacting >> to the new names, not trying to fend off the situation. I.e., in >> agreement with the words below "trying to apply RFC 6761 and finding that >> it remains subjective". > > This supports the initial suggestion that we need to get serious about a > 6761bis, am I correct? I believe so, but instead of simply raising the bar to get a special use name (which will simply result in people squatting more), I think we need to provide solid, usable advice and an option for people... W > > > thanks, > Suzanne > >> >> On 7/1/15, 9:05, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> (no hats, for the moment) >>> >>> Ed, >>> >>> It seems to me that this is exactly the issue: we've already had multiple >>> drafts requesting new entries in the special use names registry, and >>> expect more. Your note sounds as if you're fairly sanguine about "a >>> stream of unpredictable requests"; however, based on what we've seen so >>> far, I admit I'm not. >>> >>> I'm still re-immersing in DNSOP after being entirely absorbed in other >>> work the last couple of weeks, but I want to support us continuing this >>> discussion, because it seems to me that the point Andrew started the >>> thread to make is valid: we don't have a coherent view of how the >>> relevant namespaces (based on DNS protocol, compatible with DNS protocol >>> but intended for different protocol use, or otherwise) interact. >>> >>> The painful immediate consequence is that we're trying to apply RFC 6761 >>> and finding that it remains subjective to do so, with an element of >>> "beauty contest" in the deliberations that means outcomes are >>> unpredictable. There's no meaningful guidance we can give developers on >>> what names it's "safe" for them to use in new protocols, or even for >>> specific uses in-protocol, and as Andrew and others have pointed out, >>> there may even be ambiguity about what our own registries mean in >>> protocol or operational terms. >>> >>> Longer term, this lack of clarity has implications for both architecture >>> and policy for the DNS, including our ability to support innovation and >>> to coordinate with other groups in the IETF and beyond. >>> >>> >>> best, >>> Suzanne >>> >>> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/1/15, 1:47, "DNSOP on behalf of str4d" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on >>>> behalf of st...@i2pmail.org> wrote: >>>>> .onion and .i2p (and to my knowledge, the other proposed P2P-Names >>>>> TLDs too) have to conform to DNS rules in order to be usable in legacy >>>>> applications that expect domain names. >>>> >>>> I'd been told that "onion." was a one-time thing, that in the future >>>> conflicts wouldn't happen. What I read in the quoted message is that >>>> "onion."'s request isn't a one-time thing but a sign of things to come. >>>> >>>> I'm sympathetic to the use the path of least resistance - e.g., use >>>> names >>>> that syntactically are DNS names - instead of building a separate >>>> application base. I expect innovation to be free-form and thus a stream >>>> of unpredictable requests to reserve names for special purposes, >>>> including >>>> DNS-like names. >>>> >>>> What DNSOP can comment on is how the DNS "reacts" to names, whether in >>>> protocol or operational convention, once they are known before they >>>> achieve some degree of widespread adoption. To what extent is an effort >>>> made (by whomever) to detect these budding namespaces, is this >>>> proactive? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> DNSOP mailing list >>>> DNSOP@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >>> > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
