Subject: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:13:47 -0400

From the discussion on the mailing list, this draft appears to have 
support in the working group. The authors have requested a Call for 
Adoption.  The chairs want to move forward with this draft if it has 
consensus support.

This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption 
by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

This call for adoption ends Wednesday June 3rd, 2015.

Thanks,
tim/suzanne

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 May 2015 04:23:43 -0000

>Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I think we should adopt it.  I'm willing to review.

Since we're looking at it at the same time as .onion, we might see
if we can agree on consistent use of reserved namespace vs. pseudo-TLD
vs. TLD vs. whatever else people call these things.

It's not obvious to me what the benefit is of a root level DNAME to
AS112 rather than the default NXDOMAIN from the root, given how robust
the root servers are, but it's not a big deal.

R's,
John

---

From: "Joe Abley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 07:56:02 -0400

Hi Tim,

On 20 May 2015, at 22:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for 
> adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your 
> view.

I have read this draft. I support its adoption as a working group 
document. I am willing to review future revisions of this draft.

I think reserving a DNS-like namespace anchor of ALT is unnecessary; as 
I mentioned in my comments about the ONION draft, you have a choice of 
anywhere in the namespace to place that anchor, and there are an 
enormous number existing places in the DNS where you can reserve a name 
without denting root zone maintenance processes or existing DNS 
namespace policy. Having said that, I don't think (if it turns out to be 
practical, see below) reserving the ALT label in the root will do any 
harm, and if people are willing to bang their heads against ICANN policy 
to make that happen, they should go right ahead.

I like the quiet nod to the era of Usenet where people primarily 
exchanged text rather than 7-bit encoded MPEGs of mediocre network 
television. Those were the days.

The "TLD" observation I made on the Onion draft seems not to apply here 
(except in the draft name, which will change anyway). The language used 
to describe the draft's goals seems clear and pleasantly unambiguous, at 
least following a quick re-skim.

John expressed some mild reservations about the use of DNAME to sink 
accidental DNS queries with QNAMEs under the ALT domain; in fact the 
document does not specify that DNAME should be used, but rather that ALT 
be "delegated to 'new style' AS112 nameservers". I'll note that this 
would be a lame delegation, since those nameservers only serve the zone 
"EMPTY.AS112.ARPA".

If DNAME *is* to be used, the authors might make quiet enquiries as to 
how much trouble this would cause the people involved in root zone 
maintenance, since to my knowledge there is nothing in the existing 
processes or RZM machinery to allow a DNAME to be added. The use of 
DNAME has the potential to expand an awkward political conversation 
between the IAB and ICANN about authority to reserve names in the root 
zone to one that includes the other two root zone partners as well.

I could quite well be over-stating this; perhaps the IAB, ICANN, USG and 
VRSN are all tremendously best friends these days, brought together with 
one mind in glorious agreement over such trivial topics as the future of 
the IANA. But if there's an inkling of truth about my scaremongering, 
taking care to reduce the draft to the level where it can proceed to 
publication without everybody having to agree might be an idea.

Joe

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 May 2015 16:30:03 -0000

>namespace policy.

As a matter of arithmetic, you are of course correct.  But in
practice, some names are much more equal than others and .onion is a
lot more mnemonic than .alliumcepa or .vtdsknmsknd.  I doubt whether
the people who started using .corp and .mail and .home in their local
software a decade ago imagined that it would ever become a policy
issue.

>maintenance, ...

There are TLDs whose zone file contains only a DNAME (other than the
mandatory stuff) so a possible band-aid would be to do that, using
the delegation of .arpa as a precedent for our ability to ask IANA
to install NS records for us.

But the more I think about DNAME, the worse idea it seems to me.  In
particular, since DNAME does not redirect its own name, that would
mean that even though alt.<anything> would not exist in the DNS, plain
alt. would exist, and that doesn't appear consistent with the goals of
this draft.  It's a problem that doesn't occur with existing uses of
as112 since they're all subtrees of the .arpa namespace.

R's,
John

>television. Those were the days.

Whadda ya mean "were"?

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:38:35 +1000

In message <[email-masked]>, "Joe Abley" writ
> zone to one that includes the other two root zone partners as well.
 
The following will work fine and as one probably wants to break the
DNSSEC chain of trust for some of the experiments it would need to
be a insecure delegation.

	ALT. SOA ...
	ALT. NS ...
	ALT. DNAME EMPTY.AS112.ARPA.

Just because you use a DNAME to get to EMPTY.AS112.ARPA doesn't
mean that there isn't going to be a traditional delegation as well.

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:43:03 +1000

> software a decade ago imagined that it would ever become a policy

We were telling people back then not to use those names because it
was a policy issue back then and it is still a policy issue now.

Mark