Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-U

On 15 Jul 2015, at 18:56, Ted Hardie wrote:

> > I know some people say that opens the door for someone to request strings in 
> > IETF and create a denial of service attack against the "approval process" 
> > ICANN runs, but, I trust IETF to do the right thing.
> ​I think this is the wrong ​analysis of the risk.  If someone seeing the 
> acceptance for .local and .onion decides they want some other resolution 
> mechanism and creates .npr for their novel process for resolution, it will 
> work for those clients updated with local knowledge.  When the journalistic 
> outfit "NPR" comes calling at ICANN and gets a name in the root, that 
> community may not even know its going on.  But afterwards, 
> we will have local knowledge conflict with the root with ordering of 
> resolution steps deciding what happens.  That's fragile for everyone, not 
> least the people now running the gTLD .npr
To some degree we will always have "first come first serve".

This is why IETF for the .npr that is not DNS related should be registered by 
IETF so that ICANN do know that adding that as a TLD would be a bad idea.

> We saw this with squatting in the url scheme space (surely you remember the 
> fun with mms?).  Either the process of registering local partitions of the 
> global namespace has to be so easy that they get registered very early, or we 
> have to avoid this style and establish other methods of signalling alternate 
> resolution in application slots.
Correct.

And this is why I think a lower barrier of entry in the special names registry 
(and because of that blocking those names in the global DNS) is better than a 
higher barrier of entry.

But I absolutely understand others have a different view.

   Patrik

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature