Subject: [DNSOP] Requesting WGLC of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:15:54 -0400

Dear DNSOP / chairs,

We were requested to hold off on this document until the .onion
document had completed it's process. As this has now been approved,
and lies with the RFC Editor, we are requesting WGLC of
draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld ("The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain")

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Christian Grothoff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:21:58 +0200

Dear DNSOP / chairs,

The same applies to the various P2P drafts:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-
bit/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-gns/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-i2p/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-exit/

We would like the IETF to follow the same process it applied to .onion,
especially given that the origin of these drafts pre-dates the .onion
submission and they are equally technically justified, except of course
that the urgency of the IAB .onion certification did not apply.

Naturally, we're also happy to receive constructive comments, but maybe
2 years of energetic discussions will finally suffice?

Thanks!

Christian

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:27:04 +0200

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:15:54PM -0400,
 Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote 

> draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld ("The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain")

I made strong objections in
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qD0bvy2UVXno92h5IPLOBfdUs6o>
Some were addressed but not all. I'm still unhappy with:

* sloppy terminology between "domain name" and "DNS name". "DNS name"
does not seem to be defined, sometimes it is synonymous of domain
name, sometimes it is not. This leads to unfortunate sentences such as
"Names that look like DNS names" as if 7j3ncmar4jm2r3e7.onion was
maliciously trying to look like a DNS name. 7j3ncmar4jm2r3e7.onion is
a domain name (sequence of labels, the most general being at the end,
separated by dots in the text form). (Speaking of that,
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology should be mentioned, not just the old
RFC 1034.)

* questionable terms like "pseudo-TLD" (.onion is not more pseudo than
.xxx or .pizza)

Also, there is a clear lack of rationale such as the sentence "This
document provides a solution that may be more appropriate than
[RFC6761] in many cases." which does not say why it would be "more
appropriate" and in which cases.

I do not understand the sentence "The authors understand that there is
much politics surrounding the delegation of a new TLD and thank the
ICANN liaison in advance." Since this document does not ask for a
delegation in the USG/ICANN root, which is it mentioned?

Editorial: debuggung whould be debugging

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:16:32 -0400

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:27:04PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> name, sometimes it is not.

If we define DNS names as "domain names that are intended to be used
with DNS resolution, either in the global DNS or in some other
context", would that help?

> maliciously trying to look like a DNS name.

I don't think there is any connotation of malice there, and if you
think there is I'd like you to point to the text that causes it.

> draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology should be mentioned, not just the old

Good idea (though I don't know why 1034's age has anything to do with it).

> * questionable terms like "pseudo-TLD" (.onion is not more pseudo than

We actually define "pseudo-TLD", and it wasn't our coinage.  But do
you have another term that would denote those domain names that are
TLDs but that are not DNS names?  (Since xxx is actually delegated, I
think that onion _is_ more pseudo than xxx.  That's the point of this
term, but I don't care if we call it "skippy the wonder dog" as long
as we have a term.)

> appropriate" and in which cases.

Some people really wanted that vague promise, so it's in there.  But I
don't care whether we remove it.  Does anyone?

> delegation in the USG/ICANN root, which is it mentioned?

This is a good point.  Will fix.

> Editorial: debuggung whould be debugging

Thanks.

Thanks for the review.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:59:30 +0200

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:16:32AM -0400,
 Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote 

> context", would that help?

This definition is fine, for me. I note that "DNS name" (unlike
"domain name") is not defined in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology so
either we add your proposed definition in the terminology draft or in
the .ALT draft.

> Good idea (though I don't know why 1034's age has anything to do

The discussions over draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology showed clearly
that the terminology of RFC 1034 is often at odds with current
terminology. So, yes, age matters, when there is a terminology shift.

> We actually define "pseudo-TLD",

Speaking of which, according to this definition, when I make a typo
and type "hot.xxxx", and the root replies NXDOMAIN, ".xxxx" is a
pseudo-TLD ("A label that appears in a fully-qualified domain name in
the position of a TLD, but which is not registered in the global
DNS")?

> > Since this document does not ask for a delegation in the USG/ICANN
> > root, which is it mentioned?
> 

And, of course, I wanted to say "why is it mentioned?" but typed
instead "which is it mentioned?"

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:51:13 -0400

> either we add your proposed definition in the terminology draft or in

I think only here.  The terminology draft was attempting not to break
new ground (and anyway, it's well past the point where we ought to be
making substantive edits).

> the position of a TLD, but which is not registered in the global

It would be according to this draft, yes.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:38 -0700

> making substantive edits).

Correct.

> It would be according to this draft, yes.

And that seems to be the correct thing to do. The DNS does not know that 
Stephane "made a typo"; he could have been writing code for a new 
outside-the-DNS application that uses this string.

--Paul Hoffman