On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ed, >> >> First-- apologies for the misunderstanding. >> >> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: >>> >>> Trying to be more clear, I have in the past imagined that today someone is >>> inventing a new communications technology, in 6 months will need to cobble >>> an identifier space and in 2 years the IETF-connected crowd detects >>> significant deployment of this and needs to decide whether to register a >>> TLD to avoid name collisions. I've been told that this wouldn't happen >>> because the IETF will have rules - which I am skeptical would "prevent" >>> the situation from happening. >> >> I don't think we have "rules" or even guidelines now that have any chance of >> preventing it. >> >> I agree we'll never prevent it completely; it's the nature of the DNS and >> the internet that people can do things with names and they don't have to ask >> the IETF first. >> >> But I don't think it's impossible that we'll be able to provide guidance, >> such that developers who follow it are reasonably sure of avoiding the >> various types of collisions and ambiguities we're concerned about-- and such >> that there's a clear basis for saying "You're doing something outside of the >> guidance we can provide about how names work in the internet, you're on your >> own." > > > <Warren points at ALT-TLD> > > Yup, we will not be able to prevent people from using an identifier > space that looks like a DNS name not rooted in the DNS, but we *can* > provide them with guidance and a safe place to do this sort of thing, > namely under the .alt TLD. > > >> >>> To underscore - I am not against the innovation. I am urging that the >>> processes put in place are future proof by being "reactionary" - reacting >>> to the new names, not trying to fend off the situation. I.e., in >>> agreement with the words below "trying to apply RFC 6761 and finding that >>> it remains subjective". >> >> This supports the initial suggestion that we need to get serious about a >> 6761bis, am I correct? > > I believe so, but instead of simply raising the bar to get a special > use name (which will simply result in people squatting more), I think > we need to provide solid, usable advice and an option for people...
+many to what Warren says. We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making. Let's engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting. For my money, alt-TLD looks about right. --Richard > > W > > >> >> >> thanks, >> Suzanne >> >>> >>> On 7/1/15, 9:05, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> (no hats, for the moment) >>>> >>>> Ed, >>>> >>>> It seems to me that this is exactly the issue: we've already had multiple >>>> drafts requesting new entries in the special use names registry, and >>>> expect more. Your note sounds as if you're fairly sanguine about "a >>>> stream of unpredictable requests"; however, based on what we've seen so >>>> far, I admit I'm not. >>>> >>>> I'm still re-immersing in DNSOP after being entirely absorbed in other >>>> work the last couple of weeks, but I want to support us continuing this >>>> discussion, because it seems to me that the point Andrew started the >>>> thread to make is valid: we don't have a coherent view of how the >>>> relevant namespaces (based on DNS protocol, compatible with DNS protocol >>>> but intended for different protocol use, or otherwise) interact. >>>> >>>> The painful immediate consequence is that we're trying to apply RFC 6761 >>>> and finding that it remains subjective to do so, with an element of >>>> "beauty contest" in the deliberations that means outcomes are >>>> unpredictable. There's no meaningful guidance we can give developers on >>>> what names it's "safe" for them to use in new protocols, or even for >>>> specific uses in-protocol, and as Andrew and others have pointed out, >>>> there may even be ambiguity about what our own registries mean in >>>> protocol or operational terms. >>>> >>>> Longer term, this lack of clarity has implications for both architecture >>>> and policy for the DNS, including our ability to support innovation and >>>> to coordinate with other groups in the IETF and beyond. >>>> >>>> >>>> best, >>>> Suzanne >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/1/15, 1:47, "DNSOP on behalf of str4d" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on >>>>> behalf of st...@i2pmail.org> wrote: >>>>>> .onion and .i2p (and to my knowledge, the other proposed P2P-Names >>>>>> TLDs too) have to conform to DNS rules in order to be usable in legacy >>>>>> applications that expect domain names. >>>>> >>>>> I'd been told that "onion." was a one-time thing, that in the future >>>>> conflicts wouldn't happen. What I read in the quoted message is that >>>>> "onion."'s request isn't a one-time thing but a sign of things to come. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sympathetic to the use the path of least resistance - e.g., use >>>>> names >>>>> that syntactically are DNS names - instead of building a separate >>>>> application base. I expect innovation to be free-form and thus a stream >>>>> of unpredictable requests to reserve names for special purposes, >>>>> including >>>>> DNS-like names. >>>>> >>>>> What DNSOP can comment on is how the DNS "reacts" to names, whether in >>>>> protocol or operational convention, once they are known before they >>>>> achieve some degree of widespread adoption. To what extent is an effort >>>>> made (by whomever) to detect these budding namespaces, is this >>>>> proactive? >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > > > -- > 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 > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
