Subject: [DNSOP] getting back to our work on special use names

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:48:22 -0500

Dear Colleagues,

It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs see it, here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March).  We'll be having a DNSOP WG interim meeting shortly, see below.

1. We need to advance the problem statement document, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/. Please review and comment on the list. We'd like to have a WGLC on it before IETF 98.

2. Now that we have a working problem statement, we'd like to see proposals on possible changes to IETF procedures to resolve the issues we've raised. We're looking for on-list discussion, preferably with posted I-Ds.

These proposals do not have to be limited to work for the DNSOP WG; they may also include work we think belongs in other WGs, or requests to the IESG or the IAB (such as liaison statements to groups outside of the IETF).

We have had a proposal, for the ALT TLD, before us for some time now, which we put aside while we worked on the problem statement. As part of assessing solutions, we need to review https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ and determine what the WG wants to do with it. Comments to the list, please.

3. We're scheduling an interim WG meeting during the week of January 30 for further work on this topic. We'll provide some possible days/times to the list for feedback shortly, and we can't promise to accomodate everyone's schedule constraints but will do our best.

best,
Suzanne & Tim

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 02:47:37 +0000

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs see
> it, here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March).
> We'll be having a DNSOP WG interim meeting shortly, see below.
>
> 1. We need to advance the problem statement document,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/. Please
> review and comment on the list. We'd like to have a WGLC on it before IETF
> 98.
>
>
Some additional background.
The ICANN SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee) recently (Dec
22nd) published SAC090 -
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full
disclosure: I'm an author).

It is short, and easily readable -- I'd strongly encourage you to read it
(but I'll provide some teasers to tempt you!).
It notes that "a central authority to control the way in which domain names
are used in all contexts-is both infeasible and undesirable given the
robustly non-centralized way in which the Internet ecosystem evolves", and
that a coordinated management of the namespace might be best.
It also finds that uncoordinated use leads to ambiguity (and instability),
and that currently ICANN and the IETF (and others) all allocate from a
single namespace.
It recommends that ICANN
1: create criteria for determining what labels can be TLDs.
2: figure out how to coordinate with a: the IETF declaring names as
"special" (6761) and b: other "private use" names.

This is a very quick summary, please go actually read it - there are only
~6 pages of actual content, but it recommends coordination with the IETF.
So, please, let's try and get this moving -- I'd hate it if the IETF ends
up looking more dysfunctional than ICANN :-P

Also, ~3 days ago someone posted about .onion (and Special Use Names) on
hackernews -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370488 . This topic is
still of interest to a bunch of people...

> 2. Now that we have a working problem statement, we'd like to see
> proposals on possible changes to IETF procedures to resolve the issues
> we've raised. We're looking for on-list discussion, preferably with posted
> I-Ds.
>
> These proposals do not have to be limited to work for the DNSOP WG; they
> may also include work we think belongs in other WGs, or requests to the
> IESG or the IAB (such as liaison statements to groups outside of the IETF).
>
> We have had a proposal, for the ALT TLD, before us for some time now,
> which we put aside while we worked on the problem statement. As part of
> assessing solutions, we need to review
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ and determine
> what the WG wants to do with it. Comments to the list, please.
>

Yes please. The document is still parked, but please send me comments *on
the draft* and I'll try keep track of them to incorporate. I know that
there is much background which can be culled, I'll post a new version to
GitHub with that done soon.

W

>
> 3. We're scheduling an interim WG meeting during the week of January 30
> for further work on this topic. We'll provide some possible days/times to
> the list for feedback shortly, and we can't promise to accomodate
> everyone's schedule constraints but will do our best.
>
>
> best,
> Suzanne & Tim
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:22:22 +0000

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:47 PM Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It notes that "a central authority to control the way in which domain
> names are used in all contexts-is both infeasible and undesirable given the
> hackernews -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370488 . This topic
> is still of interest to a bunch of people...
>
>
>

... and I just posted a new version at
https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld

Please take a look and provide any feedback.
This document has been in limbo for a really long time - I apologize if I
have forgotten any of the comments -- please resend, or just provide
pointers to the emails and I'll go reread them.

We *know* that this doesn't solve everyone's issues, but, had it existed,
it may have provided an option for e.g homenet.alt. Also, we will need to
decide what to do about the insecure delegation question -- .onion didn't
need one, but perhaps we do? This will add an interesting wrinkle to the
whole "coordination with ICANN" discussion.

> everyone's schedule constraints but will do our best.
Interim WG meetings must be announced at least four weeks before the
meeting -- RFC 2418 section 3.1 and
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html.
When I initially read the above I figured you might mean a *virtual*
interim, but remembered some discussion on this from the Seoul meeting, and
so went to the recordings to check -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13pGB24g--k#t=6m52s

Suzanne: "Worth noting that, as the IESG pointed out today, future progress
does not need to wait on a final version of a problem statement document,
but we did want to get one adopted and relatively supported before we moved
on. If people have forgotten, the alt-tld document that was parked pending
a problem statement. We will be looking if it is time to unpark that.
We won't be discussing this topic further today.
But we are planning an interim in a few weeks that will attempt to sort out
possible recommendations, if any, for further action. Now that we have a
problem statement and active effort on it. But that's the status of that
topic -- we haven't abandoned it, frankly we can't; we promised the IETF
that we would say something, even if it's "We don't know what to say".
But there has been progress, and we're not talking about it further today."

Terry Manderson: "Wearing my IntAD hat, responsible AD for Homenet. Please
be aware that there will be a 6761 app coming forward rapidly, and you may
want to prioritize within that space please."

Paul Hoffman (DNSOP secretary): "Wearing my process weenie hat; you know
you have to wait 4 weeks between announcing when an interim is, and when
is. Now you are pushing towards xmas"

Suzanne Woolf: "Or even New Years"
Tim: "Or even New Years. I should have said probably after the 1st. I
didn't realize it was already the middle of November"
Suzanne: Key point is that we are not waiting till Chicago before we do
anything else with this, but it's not immediate either".

So, from this exchange, I'm assuming that this is actually a real interim;
this makes sense, because the topic feels like it requires a real interim -
handling this level of discussion on a confernce call / webex would be very
challenging, and would defeat much of the point --  we need actual
face-to-face discussion.
4 weeks from now is, I believe, the week for Feb 13th -- I was hoping that
the interim could be colocated with a meeting where many of the standard
set of people would be anyway (to cut down on travel costs, and possibly
take advantage of existing hotel / conference space availability (many
times sponsors get the use of a conference room at a location)).
Unfortunately NANOG is the week of Feb 5th (too early), NDSS (2017-02-26 -
2017-03-01) may be a possibility, and at least *some* of the usual folk
will be there. ICANN (2017-03-11 - 2017-03-17, Copenhagen) could be a
possibility, but that is getting close to IETF 98 (2017-03-26 -
2017-03-31).
Assuming that this is a real (not virtual) meeting I *may* be able to
provide space in NYC; Mountain View; Reston, VA (15 min from IAD); London;
or Zurich.

W

best,

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:31:06 -0500

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> ...
>> assessing solutions, we need to review https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>> doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ and determine what the WG wants to do with
>> it. Comments to the list, please.
>>
>>
> ... and I just posted a new version at https://github.com/wkumari/
> draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld
>

In this section:

4.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations
3. In general, writers of name resolution APIs and libraries do not
       need to perform special handing of these names.  If developers of
       other namespaces implement their namespace through a "shim" or
       library, they will need to intercept and perform their own
       handling.

-- I was hoping that name resolution APIs and libraries would be encouraged
to filter out these names.  So that over time all the major OS versions
would filter them for privacy.  That would greatly reduce the chances of
them reaching DNS if accidentally used on a device that is not expecting
them.

-- 
Bob Harold

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:41:53 -0500

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:47 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> 
> The ICANN SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee) recently (Dec 22nd) published SAC090 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full disclosure: I'm an author).
> 
> It is short, and easily readable -- I'd strongly encourage you to read it (but I'll provide some teasers to tempt you!).
> It notes that "a central authority to control the way in which domain names are used in all contexts-is both infeasible and undesirable given the robustly non-centralized way in which the Internet ecosystem evolves", and that a coordinated management of the namespace might be best. 
> It also finds that uncoordinated use leads to ambiguity (and instability), and that currently ICANN and the IETF (and others) all allocate from a single namespace.
> It recommends that ICANN
> 2: figure out how to coordinate with a: the IETF declaring names as "special" (6761) and b: other "private use" names. 

I read SAC090 and also recommend that others read it.  The second recommendation affects the IETF and, specifically, would address some of the problems listed in draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps.

I've reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and added some text citing SAC090; we'll publish that new revision soon.

> 
> This is a very quick summary, please go actually read it - there are only ~6 pages of actual content, but it recommends coordination with the IETF. So, please, let's try and get this moving -- I'd hate it if the IETF ends up looking more dysfunctional than ICANN :-P
> 
> 
> Also, ~3 days ago someone posted about .onion (and Special Use Names) on hackernews -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370488 . This topic is still of interest to a bunch of people...
> 
>  
> Yes please. The document is still parked, but please send me comments *on the draft* and I'll try keep track of them to incorporate. I know that there is much background which can be culled, I'll post a new version to GitHub with that done soon.

Now that we have draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, would there be any benefit to revising draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld to point to the specific problems .alt would address?

<pedantic>I was going to suggest 1,$g/alternate/alternative/, but consulting Merriam-Webster informs me that "For all intents and purposes, alternate and alternative are synonymous.  Oh, well.</pedantic>

- Ralph

---

From: tjw ietf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:23:37 -0500

I think updating alt-tld draft to point to the specific problems in
sutld-ps to be useful.

I am holding out hope that alt-tld will be unstuck and kicked down the road.
I also am holding out for a pony.

tim

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Ralph Droms <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs
> see it, here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March).
> 22nd) published SAC090 - https://www.icann.org/en/
> system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full disclosure: I'm an author).
> >
> > It is short, and easily readable -- I'd strongly encourage you to read
> it (but I'll provide some teasers to tempt you!).
> > It also finds that uncoordinated use leads to ambiguity (and
> instability), and that currently ICANN and the IETF (and others) all
> allocate from a single namespace.
> > It recommends that ICANN
> I read SAC090 and also recommend that others read it.  The second
> recommendation affects the IETF and, specifically, would address some of
> the problems listed in draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps.
>
> > This is a very quick summary, please go actually read it - there are
> only ~6 pages of actual content, but it recommends coordination with the
> IETF. So, please, let's try and get this moving -- I'd hate it if the IETF
> ends up looking more dysfunctional than ICANN :-P
> >
> >
> > Yes please. The document is still parked, but please send me comments
> *on the draft* and I'll try keep track of them to incorporate. I know that
> Now that we have draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, would there be any benefit to
> revising draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld to point to the specific problems .alt
> would address?
>
> <pedantic>I was going to suggest 1,$g/alternate/alternative/, but
> consulting Merriam-Webster informs me that "For all intents and purposes,
> alternate and alternative are synonymous.  Oh, well.</pedantic>
>
> - Ralph
>
> >
> > W
> >
> >

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:26:51 -0500

> Now that we have draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, would there be any benefit to revising draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld to point to the specific problems .alt would address?

I added some text which pointed at the general areas of
draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps which this would address.

> <pedantic>I was going to suggest 1,$g/alternate/alternative/, but consulting Merriam-Webster informs me that "For all intents and purposes, alternate and alternative are synonymous.  Oh, well.</ped…

In a move sure to trigger the OCD jean[0] in all the pedants, I've
replaced a *random subset* of the "alternate" with "alternative"....
(actually I did it where I thought it flowed / read better)

W
[0]: See what I did there?

-- 
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: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:48:55 -0500

So, clearly we are not going to be having an interim on the week of
January 30th. For those trying to follow along at home, I heard
(off-list, through a 3rd party) that the interim is supposed to be
virtual. That means that it only needs one week notice, but we've
missed that deadline as well.

There was discussion of having an interim before BA, then before
Berlin, then before Seoul. The Special Use Names topic was
specifically not given time on the agenda in Seoul, instead being
"saved" for the interim (see my Jan 16 email, and below). We've
repeatedly been told that this is an important topic (and we see
pressure from e.g  homenet, ipv4only, SSAC090, etc), and that it will
get the attention that it deserves -- but this doesn't seem to be
happening....

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, tjw ietf <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I think updating alt-tld draft to point to the specific problems in sutld-ps
> to be useful.
>

Yes, but unlike a pony there is a really easy way to get movement on
alt-tld -- you clicked the "Park" button on 2015-11-17 -- it can be
unparked equally easily.

I'd been told numerous times that it would be
unparked and WGLCed once a design team was formed, then once an
initial document was published, then once a document was actually
adopted; this hasn't happened.  If alt-tld had been moved through the
working group as expected, it would have provided an opportunity
for people to experiment and take some of  the pressure off -- for
example, home.alt *might* have been a reasonable option for homenet.
I'd been (mostly!) patiently waiting for this to be unparked with the
understanding that the SUN topic would actually get attention, but I don't
really see this happening. Can alt-tld be unparked so that we can
actually discuss it?

Because the process has been going on for so long, I thought it would
be useful to provide a timeline. The timeline is abbreviated; if I go
back through mail on this topic to add more detail, I will just become
further disappointed:

~ 2013. Topic of Special Use Names began simmering -  growing
concern/realization that issues will arise regarding in which context
names should be resolved.

Nov 13, 2013 - draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00 published.
February 10, 2014 - draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00 published.

May 2015 - DNSOP Interim meeting
June 2015 - draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld adopted
July 2015 -  IETF93 (Prague). Design Team announced. Call for
volunteers for design team[0]
October 2015 - draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem published

Nov 2015 - IETF94 (Yokohama). Concerns raised about status and
progress, lack of replies to the volunteers, repeated statements that
the process would be transparent and that it would move along.[1]
Nov 2015 - draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld parked -- "Waiting for the 6761
design team to sort out the bigger issues before moving this forward."

April 2016 - IETF95 (Buenos Aires). ARCING BoF -- large amounts of
useful content here, reasonable support for .alt.
April 2016 - draft-tldr-sutld-ps published. Joint presentation.

April  2016 - numerous requests to start Call for Adoption / some
other way to help WG choose between adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem
and tldr-sutld-ps. Told CfA would start before[3] IETF96, then would
occur during IETF96, then "immediately after IETF96"

July 2016 - IETF96 (Berlin): draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem:
Geoff Huston, draft-tldr-sutld-ps: Ted Lemon,
draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld: Warren Kumari. Discussions of an interim
[4].

12 Sept 2016 -  Call for adoption stated[5].

7 Oct 2016 - CfA completes, draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld adopted.

Nov 2016 - IETF97 (Seoul) - topic specifically not given time, with
the understanding an interim meeting would be held soon specifically
for this topic.  From the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13pGB24g--k#t=6m52s:

“Worth noting that, as the IESG pointed out today, future progress
does not need to wait on a final version of a problem statement
document, but we did want to get one adopted and relatively supposed
before we moved on. If people have forgotten, the alt-tld document
that was parked pending a problem statement. We will be looking if it
is time to unpark that. We won’t be discussing this topic further
today. But we are planning an interim in a few weeks that will attempt
to sort out possible recommendations, if any, for further action. Now
that we have a problem statement and active effort on it. But that’s
the status of that topic -- we haven’t abandoned it, frankly we can’t;
we promised the IETF that we would say something, even if it’s “We
don’t know what to say”. But there has been progress, and we’re not
talking about it further today.”

Terry Manderson: “Wearing my IntAD hat, responsible AD for Homenet.
Please be aware that there will be a 6761 app coming forward rapidly,
and you may want to prioritize within that space please.”

Paul Hoffman (DNSOP secretary): “Wearing my process weenie hat; you
have to wait 4 weeks between announcing when an interim is, and when
is. Now you are pushing towards xmas”

Chairs: “Yes, or even new years. Yup, should have said after the 1st.
Key point is that we are not waiting till Chicago before we do
anything else with this, but it’s not immediate either”.

Jan 12th 2017 - "getting back to our work on special use names" says
want to WGLC SUTLD before IETF98, and that there will be an interim
"during the week of January 30 for further work on this topic".

I heard (off-list) that this is a virtual, which needs 7 days instead
of 30, but this will still need to be scheduled today or tomorrow (for
Feb 2nd or 3rd) if it is still intended to happen next week.

So: I hope we can make some substantive progress on the Special Use
Names topic. I know I have mentioned this a number of times, and have
received repeated apologies and reassurances that the topic will be
moved along and that alt-tld will be unparked and moved to WGLC. We
had to request the CfA on alt-tld more than 10 times before that was
started, and had also made numerous requests for WGLC before it was
parked.

Special Use Names was a hard topic to begin with -- it has been made
much, much harder and more contentious by the delays and similar --
people have either become apathetic and no longer participate, or
increasingly entrenched in their positions. At a minimum, I hope that
the interim meeting will be scheduled soon, and alt-tld unparked.
There's just no reason for further delays.

W

[0]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg15679.html

[1]:
“  Suzanne: We have clear ideas about how it will be transparent
  Not sure how to implement this, but make sure whatever we do is transparent
  Regular meetings, will post minutes
  Collection point for the input from the WG
  Do the work, not make the decisions
 Suzanne: doesn't have to take time in the meetings, but will do
whatever it takes to make progress

…

 Warren: The chairs asked for volunteers, but we never heard back
        Is the design team going to grow?
Suzanne: the process has not held together well so far
  Wanted to be sure the work got started

Jari Arkko: IESG view is that it is a problem that the IESG should not
fix, it should be in the community. Should discuss the process. “"

[3]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17332.html
(and more in person)

[4]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-dnsop

[5]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17983.html

[6]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg19114.html

>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/. Please review
>> > and comment on the list. We'd like to have a WGLC on it before IETF 98.
>> >
>> >
>> > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full disclosure:
>> > I'm an author).
>> >
>> recommendation affects the IETF and, specifically, would address some of the
>> problems listed in draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps.
>>
>> > proposals on possible changes to IETF procedures to resolve the issues we've
>> > raised. We're looking for on-list discussion, preferably with posted I-Ds.
>> >
>> > may also include work we think belongs in other WGs, or requests to the IESG
>> > or the IAB (such as liaison statements to groups outside of the IETF).
>> >
>> > the list for feedback shortly, and we can't promise to accomodate everyone's
>> > schedule constraints but will do our best.
>> >
>> >
>> > best,
>> > Suzanne & Tim