>This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the disc
>ussions on the topic. Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a reflection th
>at the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic. That is not an insu
>lt because there's a significant difference between the function of registratio
>n (of anything) and the function of the DNS system. Those two topics are often
> confused and I think that is happening again.
>
>If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period and th
>e consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it is understa
>ndable. Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the roster of other
> work represents "time better spent" means that this work could be pushed off t
>he table. However, the discussion ought to be resumed somewhere else. I think
> that the Special Use Domain Name registry is needed but as it is currently def
>ined, inadequate.
I think draft-tldr-sutld-ps describes only the tip of an iceberg:
o There is strong resistance within the IETF to assigning names to
things outside of the DNS, for a variety of reasons:
* Requires a mechanism for identifying which of a set of
resolution processes is required in order to resolve a
particular name.
[...]
* The semantics of alternative resolution protocols may differ
from the DNS protocol; DNS has the concept of RRtypes; other
protocols may not support RRtypes, or may support some entirely
different data structuring mechanism.
We have no architecture how to deal with radically different naming systems
that share a single name space.
Certainly .onion uses completely different concepts than are used in DNS.
This is a technical question that in my opinion the IETF should address.
One extreme is to have no technical requirements. Anything that can benefit
from a piece of the global name space can apply.
The other extreme would be to require that such a system is on the outside
similar to DNS, i.e. support the equivalent of AAAA, MX, etc. lookups.
For example, is .onion as described in RFC 7686 from a technical point of
view what we want or not.
If the outcome of such a discussion would be to have no technical requirements
on alternative naming systems, then it makes more sense to have the name
community create a policy for such registrations and limit IETF activity to
specifications that are strongly interconnected with internet standards,
such as .ipv4only.arpa
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
