Ralph, On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm responding here with none of my various hats on...
Me too. > RD>> I think it's more correct to write that RFC 7686 defines ".onion" > as a Special-Use Domain Name, which takes it out of the Domain Name > space. No. It is still a domain name in the sense that it is within the universe of identifiers under a singly rooted namespace used on the public Internet (the "domain name namespace"). What it is not is a part of the subset of that namespace that is resolved using the DNS protocol/infrastructure. > RD>> Similarly, why are .uucp and .bitnet "bad precedents"? They are bad precedents because of the challenges they caused for network operations. Specifically, the fact that they were local policy considerations meant that references to a .bitnet or .uucp name within one administrative domain would work but would fail when that reference escaped that administrative domain (e.g., in a cc line of an email address). In my view, this is essentially the same problem that led to the IAB publishing 2826. One of my concerns with 6761 is that it can encourage recreating that operationally challenging world without explaining the inherent risks. > I think the common assumption is that everything > not lised in the Special-Use Domain Names registry is in the DNS name > space, which would make the Registry a complete catalog. I disagree. I believe the domain name namespace can be broken down into: 1. In the DNS (exists within the root zone) 2. Not in the DNS (exists within the special use registry) 3. Not defined (everything else) The primary issue I have with 6761 is that while it is relatively clear who the authority is for (1) and (2), it does not provide a clear answer about the authority for (3) or how a name gets put into (1) or (2) when taken in the context of 2860, section 4.3. > By design, RFC 6761 makes no > statement about a specific WG or evaluation body or process. Which is, of course, one of the key problems. It results in an undefined decision process dependent on the individual subjective evaluation of IESG members. Given the economic, political, and social implications of the naming hairball, this seems like a really bad idea to me. Regards, -drc (speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
