Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

On 3/28/16 9:08 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: >> That's in effect an argument that the special-names registrations are not >> special. I >> do not agree with that claim. > >>From an extreme point of view

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > That's in effect an argument that the special-names registrations are not > special. I > do not agree with that claim. >From an extreme point of view (which clearly, contextually, I hold) thats exactly what I

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

George, On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:58 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > Whats the process to understand how, and why a name gets added to the > list? Thats not an IETF question, understandably, but it would be nice > to understand it, even only in outline. As Suzanne mentioned,

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

On 3/28/16 8:49 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Andrew, > > On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: >> But I think you're smuggling into your argument a claim that >> they're potentially subject to the IPR and socio-economic issues >> that have been a problem in

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Andrew, On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > But I think you're smuggling into your argument a claim that > they're potentially subject to the IPR and socio-economic issues that > have been a problem in the DNS root and TLD zones. That's in effect > an

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

I'm sorry if my point was not clear. My perspective is that, at the end of the day, a name is a name is a name. Being on the 6761 registry or in the DNS root zone is fundamentally irrelevant when it comes to IPR and other related socio-political issues. The same concerns apply. Alain, speaking

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:41 PM 3/28/16, Alain Durand > 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

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

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

[DNSOP] WG last calls on dnssd WG drafts of interest to dnsop

The dnssd WG is currently conducting two WG last calls of interest to dnsop WG participants: draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-02 draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-03 Both of these last calls are scheduled to conclude on March 31. The dnssd WG chairs would greatly appreciate review and feedback on

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

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

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Andrew, On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I am pretty sure that > whatever could get registered under RFC 6761, it would not be an > ordinary name in the DNS. What do you mean by "ordinary"? In what way is ONION not "ordinary"? In what way are GNU,

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Ralph, On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: > First, I'll emphasize that the process of designating a name as "special use" > is separate from the mechanical process of actually adding a new name to the > Special-Use Names registry. Agreed. > RFC 6761

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

>any domain names you want, but the safe choice for avoiding operational and >policy collisions with >DNS protocol and namespace is to root your chosen domain name space under >.alt"? > >Which technical issues would persist? I can think of two, plus one non-technical one. The first technical

Re: [DNSOP] The right alt string (was Re: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01)

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 06:31:57PM -, John Levine wrote: > The URI definition in RFC 3986 says the host is a > "reg-name" which refers to section 2.1 of RFC 1123 which says a > hostname is letters, digits, and hyphens Duh. Now that you mention this, I realise that I actually had this idea

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Hi, On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 01:11:56PM +, Alain Durand wrote: > ICANN history has shown us that anything that has a name attached to it is > a potentially candidate for such a dispute. I am not sure I accept this premise. It seems to me that ICANN's history is bound up with names in the

Re: [DNSOP] The right alt string (was Re: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01)

>_alt or even _ would be better labels for this purpose. Part of the >goal has been to make these strings usable in applications (in "domain >name slots", as 5890 calls them). Would "_" work? Would "_alt"? I >have doubts, but I thought I'd ask. I don't think so. The URI definition in RFC

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 28, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > As a practical focus: sometime ago, DNSOP adopted and then parked > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/. This draft > proposes a special use names registry entry that

[DNSOP] The right alt string (was Re: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01)

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 01:32:29PM -0400, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > As a practical focus: sometime ago, DNSOP adopted and then parked > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/. This draft > proposes a special use names registry entry that would be expected to > function as

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Dear colleagues, Thanks to John for this input, and all who've commented so far; but I'd like to use John's comment to slightly re-focus this conversation. It has seemed to me from the beginning of this discussion, and even the establishment of the special use names registry, that it's fairly

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

>I understand Andrew's point to be that the decision process regarding >trademark, etc., disputes will >take place as part of the review process inherent in meeting the requirements >for publishing 'an IETF >"Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" specification', which is required in RFC >6761

[DNSOP] Document Action: 'Client Subnet in DNS Queries' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Client Subnet in DNS Queries' (draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-07.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Benoit Claise and Joel Jaeggli. A URL