Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:26:11 -0700

In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson,
I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the
IAB statement.

My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three
possibilities for a special name.

The first is, a special but needs DNS resolution. This is one case the IAB
says, "register it and put it in DNS under arpa". (I don't think that is
controversial at all, and a wise recommendation.)

The second is, a Very Special, but does not belong in DNS.  (IAB second
option.)

The third is, a Not Very Special, and not in DNS. Not registered, FCFS. Not
covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO
not conflicting with the IAB statement.

Very Special: It gets its entry in the registry in order to establish its
uniqueness, but isn't in DNS, so no entry under arpa. This avoids the
possibility of multiple mechanisms for interception fighting with each
other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and
also in-scope for the IAB statement.

Not Very Special: whoever wants the name, is reasonably sure it won't be
exposed outside of a closed environment (e.g. a single application), and
doesn't want or need to go through the 6761 process to get the name
registered.

Not Very Special is basically 6761 without the registry, in a first-come,
first-served, no guarantees kind of way.

The "onion" thing showed the need for some way of avoiding TLDs, avoiding
conflicting names, and avoiding heavy process, IMHO. And I think "alt" is
the right answer.

Also IMHO, making it "alt.arpa" would be very confusing; I think any time
someone sees "arpa" as the TLD, they should believe it exists in the DNS.

Having "alt" be the parent name here, and not be in the DNS, keeps things
clear even to non-DNS folks.

And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that
kind-of are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be
something where "alt.arpa" would make sense. But given the relative ease in
adding things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating
non-registered FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa.

Brian

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:37:10 +0900

I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question:
Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft
going to LC if that draft didn't say it?

If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some sense: in or
not in a registry; passed or not passed into the DNS; delegated or not
delegated via ICANN; would you reference the IAB document? If not, why
not?

-George

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Brian Dickson
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three possibilities
> for a special name.
>
> covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO not
> conflicting with the IAB statement.
>
> other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and also
> in-scope for the IAB statement.
>
> And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that kind-of
> are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be something
> where "alt.arpa" would make sense. But given the relative ease in adding
> things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating non-registered
> FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa.
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:49:27 -0700

> delegated via ICANN; would you reference the IAB document? If not, why

Whether to reference the IAB document?
In DNS - no, since the draft would conflict with the IAB statement. It
would open the ICANN-IETF can of worms, which the IAB document suggests
(directs?) we not do.
Delegated or not, doesn't come into it I don't think.

Not in DNS, but in a registry? Maybe, but only to make some distinction
between what the IAB document says, and some compelling reason.

Honestly, I think the IAB statement should appear pretty much as widely as
possible.
It should be up front on the DNSOP WG page.
If it could be added to "note well", that would be cool, too.
If there was a URL shortener, make the shortened URL one of the IETF
wireless SSIDs! :-)

As far as any TLD in the DNS is concerned -- there are only two basic ways
that can explicitly happen with a signed root - a delegation (signed or
unsigned), or a DNAME.
I don't think there is a third way, except maybe with specific RRTYPE(s) in
the root zone, for which I don't think a defined mechanism exists,
procedure-wise.

Brian

> kind-of