Subject: Re: NSEC+ and NO

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:49:42 +0100

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Laurie <[email-masked]> writes:

    Ben> I make it 4d99aa84d5d72b1b57e56a5b186a0c64.co.uk. (or
    Ben> 873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e.co.uk. if the more correct
    Ben> "amazon.co.uk." is the string).

    >> Now, what if I have already registered that name and even gone
    >> as far as trademarking it.  what happens ?

    Ben> Nothing - that name only appears in NSEC2 records - it would
    Ben> not be a trademark infringement for it to do so.

Suppose I've just incorporated 873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e
Limited and registered that name as a trademark. Oh, and I want to
register my company's name in co.uk. See you in court. :-)

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:54:28 +0100

> register my company's name in co.uk. See you in court. :-)

Sure, but I'm pretty damn sure you'd lose. If you really want to waste a 
lawyer's time on this red herring, I'm sure I can get an opinion.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---

From: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:13:02 +0100

>>  Suppose I've just incorporated
    >> 873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e Limited and registered that
    >> name as a trademark. Oh, and I want to register my company's
    >> name in co.uk. See you in court. :-)

    Ben> Sure, but I'm pretty damn sure you'd lose. If you really want
    Ben> to waste a lawyer's time on this red herring, I'm sure I can
    Ben> get an opinion.

However it would be nice if the NSEC2 record at
873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e.co.uk didn't prevent that owner name
from being used as a prefectly normal name for other purposes.  ie
someone _should_ be allowed to register it if they really wanted to.

Whilst a clash of this kind occuring accidentally is improbable, there
may be future applications of the DNS which demand using names that
are derived from MD5 hashes of strings...

    -roy

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:19:18 +0200

> register my company's name in co.uk. See you in court. :-)

One solution is to put NSECbis records in a separate namespace, e.g.:

$ORIGIN co.uk.
873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e IN NS jim.rfc1035.com ; your delegation
873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e._no IN NSECbis 881345... ; for amazon.co.uk.

This has other advantages:

 * There is no special parent/child behaviour for NSECbis that
   complicate resolvers.

 * (Speculative and unbaked:) You could delegate the _no zone to
   separate servers, which might have the computing capacity to
   perform online signing of NSECbis.  Or purely for administrative
   purposes, to perhaps outsource the work of maintaining NSECbis to
   someone else.  There are some synchronization issues that need to
   be studied here, though.

I'm not sure what any obvious disadvantage would be.

Regards,
Simon

---

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:58:01 +0200

> register my company's name in co.uk. See you in court. :-)

873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e  NS
873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e  NSEC2

They're unrelated. There is no problem. The NS record has a different 
NSEC2 associated with it. The NSEC2 is associated with a different owner 
name. It is highly unlikely both would appear in a single response (nee 
AXFR).

Roy

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:42:49 +0100

> I'm not sure what any obvious disadvantage would be.

The only one I can think of is that it makes the name longer.

Cheers,

Ben.