Hi Warren -
I knew of most of these and am impressed you were able to grab all of
them in summary form so quickly. But - that's a lot of documents to say
something so simple as "don't squat". I agree that, collectively, the
documents say "don't squat", I wonder if they say it succinctly enough
given that we keep finding ourselves back in discussions about various
TLD like items.
I don't have any strong feelings either way, but ask me again in two
years when we have this discussion yet again.
Mike
On 8/1/2021 9:00 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 6:04 PM Michael StJohns <m...@nthpermutation.com
<mailto:m...@nthpermutation.com>> wrote:
Actually, maybe there should be a general document "DNS Squatting
Considered Harmful"?
I think that we (well, mainly ICANN) already have a large amount that
says things along these lines. See below..
I personally don't see any real difference
between squatting on "onion" vs squatting on "zz" except that we
ended
up with a ex post facto approval of .onion. And that AIRC was a
near
thing.
So maybe:
1) The IETF and/or ICANN will not allocate any of the 2 letter
country
codes as TLDs unless and until that code is allocated to a country
by ISO.
There are already a number of documents which do things along these
lines, including:
Jon's RFC1591 (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt
<https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) which says:
2) Country Codes
The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is
not a country.
The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code
top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a
procedure for determining which entities should be and should not
be on that list.
and IANA already says much of this in "Eligible categories of
top-level domains" ()
Also RFC3071 - "Reflections on the DNS, RFC 1591, and Categories of
Domains" says:
These categories are clearly orthogonal to the association between
the use of the IS 3166-1 registered code list [2] and two-letter
"country" domain names. If that relationship is to be maintained
(and I believe it is desirable), the only inherent requirement is
that no two-letter TLDs be created except from that list (in order to
avoid future conflicts). ICANN should control the allocation and
delegation of TLDs using these, and other, criteria, but only
registered 3166-1 two letter codes should be used as two-letter TLDs.
In "ICANN and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
- A Common Interest in ISO Standard 3166 --
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-iso-3166-2012-05-09-en
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-iso-3166-2012-05-09-en>",
ICANN says:
"In 2000, the ICANN Board of Directors recognized the ISO 3166
Maintenance Agency as the authoritative entity for country code
designations and officially adopted the use of ISO 3166-1 and the
3166-MA exceptional reserved list as the set of eligible designations
for ccTLD assignment (September 2000)."
and
"ISO 3166 is also used to determine the eligibility for an IDN ccTLD
string under the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process. "
Also:
https://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/gac-statements-concerning-cctlds-16dec01.htm
<https://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/gac-statements-concerning-cctlds-16dec01.htm>
has:
Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs Presented by
Governmental Advisory Committee -
https://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm
<https://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm>
which says:
3.3 ‘Country code top level domain' or ‘ccTLD' means a domain in the
top level of the global domain name system assigned according to the
two-letter codes in the ISO 3166-1 standard, ‘Codes for the
Representation of Names of Countries and Their Subdivisions.'
In addition, RFC920 - Domain Requirements (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc920
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc920> ) says:
"The initial top level domain names are:
[...]
Countries
The English two letter code (alpha-2) identifying a country
according the the ISO Standard for "Codes for the
Representation of Names of Countries" [5].
We also have "RFC2240 - A Legal Basis for Domain Name Allocation":
"The TLDs are functionally split up into 'generic' top-level domains
(gTLDs) and two-letter ISO 3166 country domains for every country in
which Internet connectivity is provided."
2) Any one squatting on unassigned codes should not expect
remediation
from either the IETF or ICANN if that code is later allocated to a
country.
3) As a general matter TLDs of any form unassigned by ICANN should
not
be used for private use. Please pursue a special assignment via the
IETF asking for concurrence from ICANN. Other language about how the
assignment might not occur, might occur, but not for the purpose
requested, etc.
Some existing workalong these lines:
RFC8244 - Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8244
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8244>
RFC8023 - Report from the Workshop and Prize of Root Causes and
Mitigation of Name Collisions -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8023
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8023>
RFC7034 - A Method for Mitigating Namespace Collisions -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7304
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7304>
SAC062 SSAC Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk
- https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-062-en.pdf
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-062-en.pdf>
SAC066 SSAC Comment Concerning JAS Phase One Report on Mitigating the
Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions -
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-066-en.pdf
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-066-en.pdf>
Name Collision Resources & Information -
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en>
Name Collision in the DNS
"A study of the likelihood and potential consequences of collision
betweennew public gTLD labels and existing private uses of the same
strings"
--
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf>
ICANN "Addressing the Consequences of Name Collisions" -
https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/addressing-the-consequences-of-name-collisions-5-8-2013-en
<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/addressing-the-consequences-of-name-collisions-5-8-2013-en>
"Additional Reserved Top Level Domains -
draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02
-
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02>
ICANN Board Resolution "Addressing the New gTLD Program Applications
for .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL"
-
https://features.icann.org/addressing-new-gtld-program-applications-corp-home-and-mail
<https://features.icann.org/addressing-new-gtld-program-applications-corp-home-and-mail>
If we write anything, I think that it is important that the WG and
authors are familiar with the existing work related to the topic.
W
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
