Subject: [DNSOP] [[email-masked]: I-D Action: draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00.txt]

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:37:15 -0300

This draft is a result of a proposal I made in Yokohama
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dnsop-8.pdf>
where it seems it received some interest.

I do not ask to discuss it during our DNSOP meetings (I sent it too
late for that and there are still too many TODOs). But it is part of
the RFC 6761 discussion that we all love spending our time with :-)

Subject: I-D Action: draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00.txt
From: [email-masked]
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:27:52 -0700
List-Id: Internet Draft Announcements only <i-d-announce.ietf.org>

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Using DNAME in the root for the delegation of special-use TLDs
        Author          : Stephane Bortzmeyer
	Filename        : draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2016-04-06

Abstract:
   This documents asks IANA to add DNAME records in the DNS root for
   TLDs which are in the Special-Use Domain Names registry, in order to
   ensure they receive an appropriate reply (NXDOMAIN) and that the root
   is not too bothered by them.

   REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION: there is no obvious place to discuss this
   document.  May be the IETF DNSOP (DNS Operations) group, through its
   mailing list (the author reads it).  Or may AS112 operators mailing
   lists?  The source of the document, as well as a list of open issues,
   is currently kept at Github [1].

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:32:31 -0300

Stephane,

At 2016-04-06 13:37:15 -0300

> the RFC 6761 discussion that we all love spending our time with :-)

Hm, interesting.

One minor possible concern is with .ONION, where I assume that the Tor
operators would prefer as little leakage as possible. It seems that a
DNAME to EMPTY.AS112.ARPA which goes to an unmanaged anycast network
might be an increase in leakage. (It may also be that if
EMPTY.AS112.ARPA is already cached that it would be a decrease in
leakage, since no additional query would go to the AS112 servers?)

I admit that even in the worst case it is probably not a LOT more
leakage, but I think that it is some? Or am I misunderstanding?

Cheers,

--
Shane

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:45:35 -0300

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 02:32:31PM -0300,
 Shane Kerr <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Hm, interesting.

Be careful with your approval, because I'll ask Yeti to test it :-)

> One minor possible concern is with .ONION, where I assume that the
> Tor operators would prefer as little leakage as possible. It seems
> that a DNAME to EMPTY.AS112.ARPA which goes to an unmanaged anycast
> network might be an increase in leakage.

I believe that 1st paragraph of section 8 of RFC 7534 fully addresses
the question.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:52:23 -0300

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 02:32:31PM -0300,
 Shane Kerr <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 47 lines which said:

> might be an increase in leakage.

Not also that it is a DNAME so the AS112 servers would not see the
original TLD (although, in the specific case of .onion, they could
probably guess it from the strange look of the Onion key).