> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:41 PM 3/28/16, Alain Durand <alain.dur...@icann.org> > wrote: > > Andrew, > > This is the very registration in 6761 that makes (or would make) those names > special, i.e. not ordinary. Those name could as well have been reserved in > the previous ICANN gTLD round or in the next one for regular DNS purpose. The > is nothing "non-ordinary" about the strings themselves...
Let me make the point again that the document that records the Standards Action or IESG approval is what designates a name as a special-use name. Therefore, any designation as a special-use name will have IETF consensus. RFC 6761 only documents the process for recording that designation in the Special-Use Names registry. What do you mean by "reserved in the previous ICANN gTLD round"? Do you mean "assigned to some entity", in which case it's highly unlikely the IETF would come to consensus about designating such a name as a special-use name. Once a name has been designated as a special-use name, it is no longer part of the DNS namespace available for assignment by ICANN. But, I may be misunderstanding your point... - Ralph > > Alain, speaking solely for myself. > >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think I've answered these questions before, but in case not, here's >> what I think: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:15:15PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: >>> In what way is ONION not "ordinary"? >> >> The label "onion" indicates that an alternative resolution path is >> intended. Moreover, an additional underlying networking protocol is >> expected to be in use. >> >>> In what way are GNU, ZKEY, BIT, EXIT, I2P, etc., "ordinary" or not >>> "ordinary" >> >> An alternative (to DNS) resolution protocol is similarly expected. In >> some cases, additional underlying network protocols are expected. In >> other cases, it is merely an indication of alternative resolution, >> with no alternative underlying network technology. (Part of the >> reason I wanted the different cases separated is because I think it's >> an open question whether a different naming protocol with _no_ >> difference in the underlying technology is a legitimate use of 6761.) >> >>> Are HOME, CORP, and MAIL "ordinary"? >> >> Yes. They're expected to resolve in ordinary DNS contexts, though not >> necessarily the global one. My own view is that these ought to be >> outside the 6761 registry unless some ICANN-based PDP were to >> determine that they should be permanently reserved and that the >> reservation ought to be sought in the 6761 registry. >> >> Best regards, >> >> A (as usual, for myself) >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> a...@anvilwalrusden.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
