Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:06:11AM -0500, Tom Ritter wrote: > On 5/19/15 5:18 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > round.) Is there something that the IETF should be doing to help DNS > > implementers and operators handle this change in the environment? > > Yes - and I've not been following the effort clo

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> > It would be helpful to me in discerning consensus to separate two different > concepts here. > > 1. Delegating home/corp/mail in the root zone would be bad. > 2. Adding home/corp/mail to the special-use name registry would be good. > > Again, trying my best to speak as a disinterested obse

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On May 28, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > (no hats, as I haven't discussed with my co-chair and AD.) > > On May 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Lyman Chapin wrote: > >> We don't know each other, but if I may assume that you work for Uniregistry >> (apologies if I'm jumping to the wrong concl

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

In message <7fbf3d8b-e340-4540-a8b4-4786fb3e3...@gmail.com>, Suzanne Woolf writ es: > (no hats, as I haven't discussed with my co-chair and AD.) > > On May 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Lyman Chapin wrote: > > > We don't know each other, but if I may assume that you work for Uniregistry > (apologies i

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

>1. Delegating home/corp/mail in the root zone would be bad. >2. Adding home/corp/mail to the special-use name registry would be good. I think we should do 2. R's, John PS: I agree with comments that while 1 is true, it's not directly our department. ___

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > (no hats, as I haven't discussed with my co-chair and AD.) > > ... > It would be helpful to me in discerning consensus to separate two > different concepts here. > > 1. Delegating home/corp/mail in the root zone would be bad. > 2. Adding ho

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On 28 May 2015, at 11:17, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > The IETF doesn't decide what goes into the root zone. ICANN does The IETF decide what does NOT go into the root zone, while ICANN do decide what goes into the zone. ICANN can only "delay" their decision of adding things by "not yet" saying "yes"

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

(no hats, as I haven't discussed with my co-chair and AD.) On May 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Lyman Chapin wrote: > We don't know each other, but if I may assume that you work for Uniregistry > (apologies if I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion from the domain name in > your email address), you have

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On 27 May 2015, at 20:22, Lyman Chapin wrote: >> On May 26, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >> I’m against withdrawing/reserving these names. > > Hi Francisco - > > We don't know each other, but if I may assume that you work for Uniregistry > (apologies if I'm jumping to the wrong co

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On May 26, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >> >> On May 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Lyman Chapin wrote: >> >> Hi Suzanne - >> >>> HOME/CORP/MAIL (draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02): >>> >>> * This is the most controversial of the RFC 6761 drafts and the one most >>> driven by po

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Paul Wouters wrote: > > OLD: > 1) some stupid application asks for "mail" > 2) some resolver library interprets this as unqualified (maybe because >it did not resolve from the root), adds its own search domain > ".example.com" >and re-queries. > 3) resolver finds IP for mail.example.com a

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Francisco Obispo wrote: > >> On May 26, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Paul Vixie > > wrote: >> >> i also disagree. people don't know when something stops working, it just >> makes their experience worse and they don't know why. the most likely >> outcome is they'll just live in digit

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On Tue, 26 May 2015, Paul Vixie wrote: i agree with ruben. i know of a lot of local uses of HOME, CORP, and LOCAL, where non-dotless names inside some network perimeter have local meaning. i know of no instance of MAIL being used that way. How do 15 year old OSes and applications implement and

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

In message <3b05f60a-8865-45b8-a36c-042e0f5cc...@uniregistry.com>, Francisco O bispo writes: > > On May 26, 2015, at 1:07 PM, John Levine wrote: > > > >> I believe the delegation of HOME/CORP/MAIL provides with more benefit > >> than risks, there > >> will be more companies/homes and mail users h

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> On May 26, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > francisco, i object, and i also disagree. > > i object, because as a tld registry, you are making a self-interested > argument here. i'd prefer you to find someone who makes no money when a > new TLD is allocated and get them to carry this to

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2015, Paul Vixie wrote: > >>> Saying there is a concern with dotless MAIL is an easy sell, my >>> question was on issues with not-dotless MAIL. >> >> i agree with ruben. i know of a lot of local uses of HOME, CORP, and >> LOCAL, where non-dotless names inside

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On Tue, 26 May 2015, Paul Vixie wrote: Saying there is a concern with dotless MAIL is an easy sell, my question was on issues with not-dotless MAIL. i agree with ruben. i know of a lot of local uses of HOME, CORP, and LOCAL, where non-dotless names inside some network perimeter have local mea

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Francisco Obispo wrote: > >> On May 26, 2015, at 2:53 PM, John R Levine > > wrote: >> >> Interisle's report. There's a link to it about three messages back. > > Which is my point. > > We are making tons of assertions from 1 DITL window, making > assumptions about how the I

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > RFC 7085 mentions MX queries to other existing TLDs, not MAIL. And I would be > equally concerned with MX requests for dotless MAIL than with A//SRV > requests for dotless MAIL. dotless names were never contemplated as endpoints, even in the HOSTS.TXT era (see for e

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> On May 26, 2015, at 2:53 PM, John R Levine wrote: > > Interisle's report. There's a link to it about three messages back. Which is my point. We are making tons of assertions from 1 DITL window, making assumptions about how the Internet works with just a slice of the puzzle. We now know t

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Where are you getting the ‘thousands’ from? Interisle's report. There's a link to it about three messages back. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.___

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

PS: Should we also add a .BELKIN TLD?, there are tons of devices that use it (to name a few), what if in 10 years someone decides to create .FOOBARBAZ are we going to add it to the list later?, If those names were leaking as badly as the three we're talking about, sure. Regards, John Levin

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Where are you getting the ‘thousands’ from? > On May 26, 2015, at 2:33 PM, John R Levine wrote: > > Ah, you expect the thousands of people with printer.home all to change the > domain names they use. Could you explain, preferably in detail, how you plan > to do that? If thousands need to

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Could you clarify how it's supposed to work? I would certainly like to have: obispo.home, be a real FQDN, so I can name my home devices, printer.obispo.home, etc. Ah, you expect the thousands of people with printer.home all to change the domain names they use. Could you explain, preferably

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> Em 26/05/2015, à(s) 18:18:000, John Levine escreveu: > >> I'm curious about one of those TLDs: MAIL. Besides dotless "mail", which >> seems to hit >> the root at very high rate (lack of negative caching) and shouldn't be ever >> allowed to >> exist, and a few meaningful labels like local.mai

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> On May 26, 2015, at 1:07 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> I believe the delegation of HOME/CORP/MAIL provides with more benefit than >> risks, there >> will be more companies/homes and mail users happy because their names >> resolve from >> everywhere, they can validate with DNSSEC, they can opt

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

>I'm curious about one of those TLDs: MAIL. Besides dotless "mail", which seems >to hit >the root at very high rate (lack of negative caching) and shouldn't be ever >allowed to >exist, and a few meaningful labels like local.mail*, I can't recall the >reasoning for >being concerned with .mail.

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> Em 26/05/2015, à(s) 15:50:000, Lyman Chapin escreveu: > > Hi Suzanne - > >> HOME/CORP/MAIL (draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02): >> >> * This is the most controversial of the RFC 6761 drafts and the one most >> driven by policy concerns > > It is not driven by policy concerns; it is

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

>I believe the delegation of HOME/CORP/MAIL provides with more benefit than >risks, there >will be more companies/homes and mail users happy because their names resolve >from >everywhere, they can validate with DNSSEC, they can opt who can connect to >their >networks and no longer require domain

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> > On May 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Lyman Chapin wrote: > > Hi Suzanne - > >> HOME/CORP/MAIL (draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02): >> >> * This is the most controversial of the RFC 6761 drafts and the one most >> driven by policy concerns > > It is not driven by policy concerns; it is dr

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Hi Suzanne - > HOME/CORP/MAIL (draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02): > > * This is the most controversial of the RFC 6761 drafts and the one most > driven by policy concerns It is not driven by policy concerns; it is driven by operational concerns, and I have heard almost no one in the WG

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

>I think I used zone cuts to mean something it's not, I meant >"establish separation lines in DNS that parties (like browsers, or >anyone using PSL) can use to make security decisions about what is an >'open' domain hierarchy with mutually distrusting participants versus >what is a 'shared' domain

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On 20 May 2015 at 10:54, John Levine wrote: >>Because (AIUI) DBOUND is intended to specify security-relevant zone cuts >>*in DNS* using it to specify names that are reserved in DNS but not _in_ >>DNS might come out a little weird... but it seems like the most relevant >>place to at least take the

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

>> 4. It's been pointed out that the maintenance of the special use names >> registry is complicated by the fact that people used to be able to >> assume the root zone was relatively stable, and this assumption has >> become less defensible. (ICANN is not currently accepting new >> applications for

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

[ not subscribed to dnsop, so this might not post to the list; please cc me on replies ] On Wed 2015-05-20 08:06:11 -0400, Tom Ritter wrote: > On 5/19/15 5:18 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> 4. It's been pointed out that the maintenance of the special use names >> registry is complicated by the fa

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > First, thanks for extensive and thoughtful discussion on the list and in our > interim meeting last week on the way forward for the internet-drafts > requesting special use names registry entries under RFC 6761. > > > T

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

On 5/19/15 5:18 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > 4. It's been pointed out that the maintenance of the special use names > registry is complicated by the fact that people used to be able to > assume the root zone was relatively stable, and this assumption has > become less defensible. (ICANN is not curren

[DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Dear Colleagues, First, thanks for extensive and thoughtful discussion on the list and in our interim meeting last week on the way forward for the internet-drafts requesting special use names registry entries under RFC 6761. This message is fairly long, and contains some impressions of where we