Subject: Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existence of non-existent domains

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 5 Jan 2010 06:20:02 -0000

I've done another version of my reserved names draft.

This time it proposes four registries:

1.  Reserved and special top level names.  ARPA is special, the others
are reserved.

2.  Reserved and special second level names.  EXAMPLE.COM, ORG, and
NET are reserved in the RFCs.  ICANN has many more that I'd hope they
would add to the regsistry, e.g., EXAMPLE.<everything else>.  I'm not
aware of any special 2LDs, but who knows what might be lurking.

3.  Names in .ARPA.  This updates the list in RFC 3172 and makes it a
registry.  They're all special unless SINK.ARPA is approved in which
case it would be reserved.

4. Names that are special elsewhere.  _service, _DOMAINKEY, etc.  I'd
be delighted to take this out if the project to codify service and
protocol names agrees to include the handful of other _blah names
defined in RFCs.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levine-reserved-names-registry-01.txt

R's,
John

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:39:39 -0600

On the table at 2.1.4 you need to add LATNIC that seems to be also
reserved by ICANN, not sure why they missed it on the DAG but it's on
every single Registry Agreement.

For 2.2.4, I believe all the names listed in 2.1.4 are also reserved
for second level domains and you are still missing a place where to
record the names reserved by each Registry (if any) and listed on each
individual Registry Agreement
(http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm), for example
ABOUT.INFO, not sure if IANA has to be responsible to keep the list
for them but it would be nice if they are all listed in a single
place.

What about tagged domain names like "bq--1k2n4h4b" or "xn--ndk061n"
and one or two character names ?

Regards
Jorge

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 5 Jan 2010 10:55:28 -0500

These are reasonable things to add, but I'm waiting to see if there's 
agreement that it's worth moving forward.

> every single Registry Agreement.

You're right, but since it's not in the guidebook, I have nothing to 
document it.  Perhaps this shows why it would be a good idea to create 
these registries, so missing entries are more immediately evident.

> and one or two character names ?

They're all in appendices to the various gTLD and sTLD agreements.  I'm 
happy to add them but since it's a lot of work I'll wait and see where 
we're going.

R's,
John

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:31:24 -0800

>every single Registry Agreement.

PSO might also have to be added then.  According to information 
published by IANA, these two names are still reserved.

"Transparency, once lost, is hard to regain" [1].  We could reflect 
on that as we discuss about reserved names.  Some people might argue that:

   "The Domain Name System (DNS) provides an essential service on the
    Internet, mapping structured names to a variety of different types of" [2]
    money making schemes.

I can only hope that the domain name policy makers have read RFC 
4367.  Defining a registry for reserved names can be a perilous 
exercise.  There are different viewpoints about whether the authority 
to do so is the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet 
Architecture Board, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers or the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.  There's the 
protocol angle where RFC 2860 gets invoked as in BCP 52.  There's RFC 
2606 which predates RFC 2860.  There was a draft in 2005 
(draft-eastlake-2606bis) which raised questions similar to the 
current draft about reserved names.  There was also another draft 
(draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds) written in 2008 which was an 
attempt to update RFC 2606 based on recent ICANN changes.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt
2. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4367.txt