On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:04:05PM -0500, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote a message of 82 lines which said:
> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: > > "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02 I'm not convinced that there really is a "problem" with special-use domain names and I would like to see some sort of applicability statement saying (I send text...) "The issues listed here should not be interpreted as indicating that special-use domain names should not be reserved and used. While we may see one day a RFC 6761bis, in the mean time, the process it describes should continue to be open and available." Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to compile automatically the code for the various cases. I send text: after the paragraph "When a special-use Domain Name is added to the special-use Domain Names registry, not all software that processes such names will understand the special use of that name.", add: o This problem is made more difficult by the fact that there is no formal language for the registry. The list of SUDN with their specific requirments is not machine-readable. As a result, software developers who write resolving code have to translate the registry by hand into their code, a process which is painful, brittle, and unlikely to be repeated often (thus making software obsolete with respect to the registry). Now, the details: > Both ICANN and the IETF have the authority and formal processes to > assign names from the pool of unused names, but no formal > coordination process exists. As I said several times, this is not true <https://www.ietf.org/liaison/managers.html> Was this mechanism used once for special-use domain names? What was the result? > Organizations do in fact sometimes commandeer subsets of the > namespace. Reasons a third party might do this include: There are others: * Intended use is covered by gTLD process, don't recognize ICANN's right to block these TLD * Intended use is covered by some IETF process, but the process is too long, too bureaucratice and too incertain [before you jump on this one, remember IETF never replied to requests to reserve names like .bit or .zkey] > the fact of its unilateral use by the TOR project without following > the RFC 6761 process This is ridiculous, .onion was used since 2004 <https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/sec04/tech/dingledine.html> and RFC 6761 was published in 2013. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
