maybe others would be interested. /Wm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: william manning <chinese.apri...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names To: John Levine <jo...@taugh.com>
I'm liking Johns approach - There is not a technical solution to a policy or political problem. Documenting known ways in which people are using DNS and DNS-like naming systems might be very useful. Of course such a document would benefit greatly from a companion document that defined the "proper" or "correct" use of the DNS... If you don't know what is allowed, then knowing what is out of bounds is very hard indeed. As constituted, the DNS is made up of three fundamental components, an ephemeral namespace, servers which publish parts of that namespace, and resolvers which query the servers about the namespace. The second and third components use a specific suite of protocols to ask/answer questions about the namespace. Usually this is what people in the IETF refer to as "the DNS". Some groups reuse the namespace, but use different protocols, some use the protocols, but not the namespace. Are all of these DNS? Any of them DNS? if not, why not? /Wm On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:10 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > >> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask > >> the WG to choose. > > The more I think about it, the more I think that they're both too > long, and we'd be better off with a one or two sentence description of > what we're trying to do, perhaps along these lines: > > * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that are handled > in ways other than the DNS. (That's mDNS and .onion) > > or > > * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that should not > be delegated in the DNS. (That's the toxic waste.) > > or maybe something else, so long as it's short. > > > Also, FYI: > > >> 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS ... > > >This study is from before the new gTLD program. The assumption in the > >report need to be tested against what actually happened in the round of > >new gTLDs before it can be included as part of the fact basis for this > >work. We also need information on the degree of success that the > >various mitigation strategies had in overcoming possible problems to > >have a full picture of the problem as it has been shown in practice. > > At a meeting a couple of weeks ago, I believe that someone said that > the junk traffic at the roots for each of .corp, .home and .mail still > greatly exceeds all of the traffic for the new gTLDs. So I think it's > safe to say none of the mitigation strategies have worked. > > The wildcard 127.0.53.53 and such are clever, but none of the domains > that have been delegated had significant collision issues to start > with so it's hard to argue they've been effective. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > 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
