Good comments, thanks. I will add something more about 451.
On Apr 6, 2016 1:54 PM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:35:19PM +0000,
> Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote
> a message of 49 lines which said:
>
> > I wrote about six pages of comments on the recently-submitted
> > special-use TLD problem statement document.
>
> I like it. I find it better than the awful
> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem, with its disparaging
> terminology ("pseudo-TLD", a term I would be glad to see replaced by
> "SUTLD").
>
> > However, I think it may serve as a better starting point for the
> > discussion than the current problem statement draft,
>
> +1 and I recommend to everyone to read it before the discussion on
> friday.
>
> A few remarks:
>
> > its unilateral allocation by the TOR project without following the
> > RFC 6761 process
>
> .onion was created nine years before RFC 6761 so you cannot blame the
> Tor people for not following it.
>
> > 4.1.1. Are Domain Names DNS Names?
>
> You should really mention draft-lewis-domain-names here (you do it,
> but later).
>
> > 4.1.2. Does Every Domain Name Have The Same Meaning Everywhere?
>
> Your claim is that today's differences in DNS answers for a same name,
> as we see them today, are not real differences because they don't
> change the user experience, or because they are done for good (malware
> domains filtering). You forgot a very important use case,
> censorship. Today, if a domain name works in Germany and not in France
> because of differential censorship, would you say it is "not really an
> exception"?
>
> Let's face it, we no longer have a common namespace and names no
> longer have the same meaning everywhere, even when taking only the DNS
> in to account.
>
> > 4.5. Experimental Squatting Problem
>
> I dislike the term "squatting" which seems to imply that it was
> illegal. Seriously, today, which avenue is open for a application
> developer who thinks a special-use TLD would be nice for its
> application? Besides patronizing like "we are the Elders, we know it
> better, drop this stupid idea"?
>
> > At present RFC 6761 doesn't give specific advice about what
> > delegation, if any, should appear for newly registered SUTLDs. It
> > may be worthwhile to make a default recommendation for this.
>
> See draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root, published ten minutes ago.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
