Subject: #1047 and #1132 - USEPRO text for section 2.3

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:30:20 +0200

This is not a text that I'm asking the WG to resolve on now (since we're 
still trying to get USEFOR finished), but I want to have it recorded in the 
mailing list archives now, and resolve it when we get around to USEPRO.

Suggested text, replacing the text of USEPRO section 2.3 from the second
paragraph to the end:
-------------------------------------

   <Path-identity>s can take the following forms (in decreasing order of
   preference):

   1. A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) that can be resolved to an
      email server via an MX, A or AAAA record according to the procedures
      of [RFC2821]; this guarantees that the name is unique, and makes it
      easy to contact the administrators if needed.

   2. A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) that is guaranteed to be
      unique by the administrators of the domain; for instance, the
      uniqueness of "server.example.org" could be guaranteed by the
      administrator of "example.org" even if nothing is stored in the
      DNS for that name.

   3. Some other (arbitrary) name believed to be unique and registered
      at least with all other news-servers sending articles directly to
      the given one. This option SHOULD NOT be used unless the earlier
      options are unavailable, or unless the name is of longstanding
      usage and cessation would be unduly disruptive, or unless one
      of the earlier options is provided as well

   According to [RFC 2142], the forms "usenet@server" and "news@server"
   are common addresses for a news server administrator.

-------------------------------------------------------
Note that I suggest deleting the NOTEs that Charles suggested; I don't 
think they are needed.
I also deleted the (not connected to the Internet) parenthesis in 3, since 
with the addition of option 2, that's not a valid excuse to not have a 
domain name.

The last sentence is the remnants of the "email contact address 
requirement".

                           Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:16:36 GMT

>      administrator of "example.org" even if nothing is stored in the

No, I don't like that at all, and I hear no great clamour for it. (if that
goes, then #1 would go back to something like my present text).

>   are common addresses for a news server administrator.

I though you had ruled that these addresses (and abuse) were not to be
mentioned in USE[FOR,PRO], but only (possibly) is USEAGE.

You would still need the NOTE about the dead:beef problem, unless this is
covered in USEFOR (which it seems to be in both of our versions).

>with the addition of option 2, that's not a valid excuse to not have a 

I don't see that. If you are totally separated from the internet, then
you are not in a position to negotiate with the administrator of
"example.org".

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:36:02 +0200

--On onsdag, september 14, 2005 14:16:36 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I also deleted the (not connected to the Internet) parenthesis in 3,
>> since  with the addition of option 2, that's not a valid excuse to not
>> have a  domain name.
>

You could send him a letter in the mail, or give him a phone call..... what 
I thought you originally meant by "not connected to the Internet" was 
"machine is not connected to the Internet at the time the name has to be 
decided upon", but you seem to use it as "administrator has never been in 
touch with anyone on the Internet".

                  Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:18:10 GMT

>touch with anyone on the Internet".

You could, but there is still no sure way for a person reading the
not-DNS-hostname to discover who owns it. So I am still against this idea,
and I do not hear others pushing for it. If someone does not possess a
clearly identifiable FQDN, then let him use a <bareword>. Then everybody
knows it is no use chasing him through the DNS.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:08:29 +0200

--On 15. september 2005 16:18 +0000 Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>> You could send him a letter in the mail, or give him a phone call.....
>> what  I thought you originally meant by "not connected to the Internet"
>> was  "machine is not connected to the Internet at the time the name has
>> to be  decided upon", but you seem to use it as "administrator has never
>> been in  touch with anyone on the Internet".
>
> not-DNS-hostname to discover who owns it.

Why does he need to know?
He knows who ADMINISTERS it, and if the administrator does not know who he 
allocated it to - that's bad for the administrator.
So if he HAS to, he has an administrative chain to chase.

(btw, that's not uncommon in connected systems either. This machine 
currently has a perfectly unique DNS name, halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com, 
but you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of figuring out from the 
DNS who owns it, apart from the obvious "it seems to belong to Cisco").

> So I am still against this idea,

I have heard multiple people pushing strongly against encouraging more use 
of <bareword>. Pointing out that you can get an unique name by leveraging 
administrative control of DNS domains would help lessen the need for 
<bareword>.

                       Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:51:55 GMT

In <3681FAD199B3ABFFA052F08B@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

>--On 15. september 2005 16:18 +0000 Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]>=20
>wrote:

>He knows who ADMINISTERS it, and if the administrator does not know who he=20

The reason people examine the Path closely and might wish to know the true
identity of particular sites is usually that they suspect some
malpractice/spam/scam/whatever.

Sadly, it is also the case that the higher you go in the levels of DNS
(which usually brings you to some large and bureaucratic organization such
as an ISP or other provider of connectivity services), the greater the
reluctance you find to provide information about individual sites (short
of a court order or other such blunt instrument) and the more likely you
are to find an abuse desk which simply presents a canned reply from a
rather limited repertoire (or worse, just acts like /dev/null).

Moreover, it is knwon that spammers/acammers/whoever tend to gravitate
towards large sites with poor records of fighting abuse.

Therefore, if a domain-name that actually resolves to something is
required, you have a much better chance to locate it. It it is an MX
record, you have someone to mail to. If it resolves to an IP-address, you
can find who owns that block, or you can use traceroute to get a fair idea
of its location.

I grant you that a <bareword> is not easily traceable, but at least you
can see it for what it is and adjust your strategy accordingly (e.g. by
examing lots of Paths to see who it peers with).

>I have heard multiple people pushing strongly against encouraging more use=20
>of <bareword>. Pointing out that you can get an unique name by leveraging=20
>administrative control of DNS domains would help lessen the need for=20
><bareword>.

No, what you have heard is lots of people saying that a <bareword> is
undesirable when a _useable_ domain-name is available. But not that a
<bareword> is any worse than a bogus domain-name. And it is agreed that
there are cases where a <bareword> is indeed a reasonable thing to use.