Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-main-sane-tld-00.txt

From: Zefram <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:26:07 +0100

I wrote an I-D raising a DNS-related issue:

[email-masked] wrote:
>	Filename	: draft-main-sane-tld-00.txt
...
>This memo examines practical problems in the use of the ICANN generic
>top-level domains, in particular that they fail to provide a stable
>namespace that is required by some protocols.  The practical problems
>are traced to underlying problems in domain name allocation policy in
>those domains.  Possible solutions to the problem are discussed,
>including the possibility of a new top-level domain to be managed in
>accordance with IANA assigned-numbers principles.

This doesn't seem to fall precisely within the charter of any current
IETF WG, though dnsop seems the closest.  Is the dnsop list an appropriate
place to discuss this matter?

Whether it is discussed here or not, no doubt many dnsop denizens will
have opinions on this I-D, and I'd appreciate commentary from people
working in this area.  I'll respond to comments sent either to the dnsop
list or directly to me.

-zefram

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:00:33 -0400

>place to discuss this matter?

My immediate reaction was that allocating any kind of TLD is within the
baliwick of ICANN, not the IETF nor any of the WGs.  I don't see that the
draft is really about DNS, but more about setting up a new TLD with certain
properties.  Perhaps you will want some input on this, but IMHO, this isn't
really an IETF issue.

Ultimately, you'd need to make a case to ICANN anyway for this to happen.

>working in this area.  I'll respond to comments sent either to the dnsop

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: [email-masked]

You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:30:27 -0700

> properties.  Perhaps you will want some input on this, but IMHO, this isn't

i agree

randy, with ad hat firmly on

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:57:28 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward Lewis" <[email-masked]>
> baliwick of ICANN, not the IETF nor any of the WGs

With the introduction today of Windows XP with IPv6 and support
for "IPv8 Addressing", I believe the Internet will expand a bit.
ICANN is simply doing Proof-of-Concept testing of some new
TLDs on the "toy" Early Experimental Internet. I can not imagine that
ICANN will have much impact on TLDs on the Next Generation
Internet. They seem to have their hands full with their current research
projects.

It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?

The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

---

From: Zefram <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:40:28 +0100

Edward Lewis wrote:
>baliwick of ICANN, not the IETF nor any of the WGs.

Oh indeed, the creation of the kind of TLD that my I-D suggests would
require work with ICANN.  That's not what I'm trying to do at this
stage.  I'm only trying to establish the technical problem, the need
for a certain type of domain name, which seems to be a technical issue,
concerning many Internet protocols, rather than a pure policy matter.
Or is ICANN more of a technical body than I previously realised?

I see a three stage process that would be necessary before the kind of
TLD I argue for could be created.  Firstly, statement of the technical
problem, which is what I'm trying to do here.  Secondly, development
of the details of a solution.  Only after these two stages are complete
could we consider actually creating a new domain as part of the solution.
It seems to me that the first stage is very much an IETF matter, and
the third largely an ICANN matter.  The middle stage I had thought of
as primarily a technical, hence IETF, matter, but perhaps ICANN input
would be needed there also?

You're quite right that this isn't really a DNS protocol issue, at least
no more than RFC 2826 is.  As I said, it's not quite in dnsop's charter.
Perhaps it would fit better under the Applications Area or the Internet
Area?

-zefram

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:25:58 -0400

Zefram,

The mechanism complined of is policy-based transfer. The depricated policy
is the contention resolution based upon other-than temporal ordering, aka
"first-come, first-served".

The claim is that the mechanism results in impersistence of name-to-address
mappings. This is true.

The same property arises from finite-term fee-based allocation.

One mechanism for obtaining an unencumbered namespace is the unlikely hyphen
rule, the "bq--" of IDN fame, for some values of "b" and "q".

If there was a need for a namespace with interesting properties, e.g., highly
impersistant "twinkling", N-to-M mappings, where N or M or both are integers
greater than one, or, just to pick an example we should have tried for the
purpose of putting some data rather than rhetoric on the IDN plate, with the
set of characters used for name labels expanded (or contracted), ... AND that
property was only usefully available in a TLD, then it looks like a PSO issue,
not an ICANN issue, and an IETF issue, not an ETSI/W3C/ITU issue. Maybe.

What you've got isn't that. Your draft revisits familiar terrain, or terrain
that a lot of people have bumped across.

In the interests of full disclosure, a lot of people seem to find what I do
and write horribly offensive. I don't mean to be. I work for NeuStar, a
parent company of NeuLevel, the dotBIZ gTLD operator, and I do IETF and did
ICANN related "stuff" for NeuStar. I've been involved with the mess since
about 1996.

I personally think "first-come, first-served" really is early-adopter
preference. As technology adoption is a function of access to capital,
it favors those with earliest access to capital. This view is shared by
my tribe, and by all of the tribal governments who's position on this is
known to me, and by some "national" governments, one of who's position
papers I'm editing today.

If you really think there's a there "there", try the security directorate.

Eric

P.S. Kudus to Ms. Stein, of Oakland.

---

From: Simon Coffey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:30:54 +0100

Edward,

My experience with ICANN, when discussing defining new TLDs, suggests that
they consider it to be the responsibility of the IETF to define or reserve
TLDs for "special" purposes.  So whilst they no doubt would wish to be involved
in these decisions, they would take the lead from the IETF when it comes
to the need for a particular TLD.

regards

Simon

Edward Lewis wrote:

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com