-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 07/08/2015 08:36 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> It further seems to me that an attempt to list names that are
> currently in the public root zone or might someday be in the public
> root zone has a high risk of being simply backwards if the purpose
> is to identify names it's "safe" to use in other contexts because
> they won't collide with names in the public root zone.
>
I can see a distinction here between "names that are currently in the
public root zone", and "names that might someday be in the public root
zone". Obviously, the former is a finite list of names in operation,
and can serve as a reference to avoid name conflicts with non-DNS
namespaces: they already exist, so they should be considered solid.
Besides, if I understood well, there's a procedure to send
decommissioned domains to a 50-year-purgatory before they return to the
"unused" set. On the other hand, this latter set of unused, potential
domain names is the complementary of the former in the superset of all
domain names: making it special as such would determine the future of
the namespace, which seems to go against the idea of letting reality
unfold and adapt to it. So I'd recommend a clear distinction is made
between "existing domain names in the public root", and the rest of the
set, kept as undetermined and irrelevant to daily operations.
> Our current
> approach as documented in RFC 6761 comes at this question from the
> perspective that the IETF can declare whatever names it likes to be
> so "protected" by extending the standard with a new entry in the
> special use names registry, but takes no account of any possible
> distinctions between names currently in use at an arbitrary time
> for the DNS, names that will (or even might) be in use at a future
> time for the DNS, and any other categories.
>
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "currently in use at an
arbitrary time for the DNS": it sounds to me as an equivalent to "the
superset of all possible domain names" that I evoked earlier; if a
domain is in use now, it's part of the set of "existing domain names in
the public root", otherwise it's undetermined. Or do you mean there
should be a preemptive complete assignation of the domain namespace? I
don't think it's possible to predict an ordered way of revealing the
namespace until its exhaustion: it sounds mechanistic. Maybe you're
suggesting that some names should be reserved for future use? In that
case I fear arbitrariness may be the rule. What example categories
would you think of?
> We might want to decide which, if any, of such distinctions are
> meaningful for the purposes of the IETF identifying "special use
> names".
>
For the sake of avoiding name conflicts, the distinction above is
necessary ("existing", i.e., registered by IANA, or not).
Regards,
==
hk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=Z2EX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
