[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

2017-07-05 07:02:35
(not sure which hat. Probably doc shepherd.)

On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:

On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages?  or
is thins just one of those ietf documents from on high meant to kill

This is a very good question. We weren’t asked to answer that question, so we 
didn’t.  It is assumed throughout the document that various proponents of 
special use domains have good reasons for wanting them, and further that it 
is already accepted in principle that if their reason for wanting them is 
valid, they can have them (modulo technical constraints like delegation). So 
we didn’t delve into that. But perhaps we should have. 

I’d go a step further: RFC 6761 alludes to some general reasons, but assumes 
people who’d go through the IETF standards process or an IESG approval process 
to get an entry in the special use names registry have good enough reasons that 
the special handling requested should be accepted as part of the DNS protocol. 
(I’m one of the people who isn’t comfortable with this assertion, but we’re 
living with what RFC 6761 says, not what I think it should have said.) 

That is, RFC 6761 leaves to other processes to assess the value of the request 
and the reasons offered, but strictly speaking doesn’t require them to be 
documented or evaluated; required documentation for the registry entry consists 
mostly of assessing how it interacts with the DNS, not its primary use. (Sec. 4 
starts by saying “If it is determined that special handling of a name is 
required in order to implement some desired new functionality,” the registry 
entry policy applies, but openly avoids describing how that determination 
should be made.)

This isn’t really strange— plenty of registries don’t require any particular 
discussion of the merits of an entry; ISTM that “standards action” presumes 
such evaluation as part of IETF consensus. But it does seem like a significant 
part of the observed problem— there are only subjective and ad hoc bases for 
evaluation for a request that’s not otherwise justified by a standards track 
document, leading to endless repetitions of discussions like whether a new 
CLASS would be a “better” way to solve a problem that isn’t actually documented 
in the request.

I think the observation that people aren’t really required to document what 
problem they are trying to solve with their special use name is in the draft, 
but perhaps could be more explicit. 

Some few people already have been convinced that there should be some general 
guidance available for making the determination that a domain name requires 
special handling in the DNS. But that also seems to be a different document.