It is a random label on the left that some random resolvers may generate answers for, thus it is not SUN (i.e. answer B)
Olafur On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear DNSOP, > > The KSK-Sentinel document ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-12) makes > use > of the (leftmost) labels root-key-sentinel-is-ta-<key-tag> and > root-key-sentinel-not-ta-<key-tag>. If a validating recursive resolver > sees > these labels, it performs special handling. > > Great, everyone is nodding along so far... > > Gulp. Now for the question: Is root-key-sentinel-is-ta-<key-tag> an > RFC6761 > "Special-Use Domain Name"? > > The authors are in disagreement - RFC6761 talks about "Special-Use Domain > *Names*", not "Special-Use Domain *Labels*", but Stuart has said that it > wasn't intended to be only for TLDs / pseudo-TLDs / things starting at the > top of the tree. > My view is that this probably is a SUN; it is a name which requires special > handling. > My co-authors (rightly) point out that "name" is poorly defined, this is a > label not a name, RFC6761 is vague in it's use of terminology, and all of > the examples and entries are right-anchored. > > We've crafted answers to "the 7 questions" from RFC 6761 below; we don't > care which option the WG selects (we have the text and revisions are free), > but we (and I'm assuming the WG!) desperately don't want this to turn into > another extended discussion on SUN / names vs identifiers vs identities vs > contexts / who has policy control over root / internet governance / etc. > > So, please, *clearly* state if you think that this: > A: is a SUN > B: is not a SUN > > RFC 8244 [0] was fun, but I'm not sure how much more fun I can handle; we'd > love *clear* guidance by next Friday (May 25th) > > 'So don't delay, act now, supplies are running out > Allow, if you're still alive, six to eight years to arrive > And if you follow, there may be a tomorrow > But if the offer's shunned > You might as well be walking on the SUN" > -- Smash Mouth > > > Note: We are answering the questions as asked, and so use 6761 terminology: > ---------------------- > IANA Considerations > > The IANA is requested to make the following entries in the Special Use > Domain Names registry > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use- > domain-names.xhtml) referencing this RFC > > root-key-sentinel-is-ta-<key-tag>.* RFC XXXX > root-key-sentinel-not-ta-<key-tag>.* RFC XXXX > > Domain Name Reservation Considerations > > This refers to the set DNS names where the left-most label matches the > specified patterns. > The answers to the seven questions listed in [RFC6761] are as follows: > > 1: Users: > Human users are not expected to use or recognize these names as > special, other than those who wish to perform testing of their DNS > resolution environment. It is expected that the majority of the testing > will be performed through automated means (e.g: using JavaScript to > cause the user's browser to trigger a DNS lookup), and so the majority > of users will never see these. > > 2. Application Software: > No specified behavior is expected of application software. > > 3. Name Resolution APIs and Libraries: > Name resolution libraries are not expected to recognize these names as > special. > > 4. Caching DNS Servers: > Caching DNS servers which perform DNSSEC validation are > expected to treat these labels specially, as described in this document. > > Caching DNS servers which are NOT performing DNSSEC > validation are not expected to treat these names as special. > > 5. Authoritative DNS Servers: > Authoritative domain name servers are not expected to undertake any > altered behaviour for these names. > > 6. DNS Server Operators: > These reserved Special-Use Domain Name have no potential impact on > DNS server operators. > > > 7. DNS Registries/Registrars: > These names have a special behaviour only when used as the > left-most > label in a name resolution query. They have no special significance > in any other context and are not required to be treated differently > in the context of registeries and registrars. > ------ > > > W > > [0]: The Abstract of RFC 8244 says: > "The policy defined in RFC 6761 for IANA registrations in the > "Special-Use Domain Names" registry has been shown, through > experience, to present challenges that were not anticipated when RFC > 6761 was written. > .... > This document should be considered required reading for IETF > participants who wish to express an informed opinion on the topic of > Special-Use Domain Names." > > -- > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
