I think you have read the draft as if it were about "the problems with special-use names." This is not the intended reading. It is intended to be read as "the set of problems that motivated RFC 6761, plus the set of problems that would motivate an update to RFC 6761."
Solutions are out of scope. It would be helpful if you could read the document again assuming the motivation I just described, and tell me where you think it deviates from that motivation: that is, whether you just mis-read it, and now that I point it out, it's obvious, or whether you think the document doesn't actually do what it sets out to do. It would be ideal if you could avoid using phrases like "the only problem with RFC 6761." What you mean, of course, is "the only problem I see with RFC 6761." Other people see other problems; the point of the document is to list all of those problems, not for everybody to agree that those problems need to be solved. > On Feb 8, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
