Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

4.1.2 cites sub-domains of .ARPA arguing for special use TLD #48

Closed
ggm-at-apnic opened this issue Feb 16, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

4.1.2 cites sub-domains of .ARPA arguing for special use TLD #48

ggm-at-apnic opened this issue Feb 16, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@ggm-at-apnic
Copy link

ggm-at-apnic commented Feb 16, 2017

It seems to me inappropriate to cite subdomains of .arpa which pre-existed the existence of ICANN to post-hoc justify the SUTLD problem statement

  • they are sub domains not TLD
  • they predate process in any sense.

note them? sure. do they help? nope.

So the promiscuous use of SUTLD distinct from SUDN means this is totally confused. It needs to be clearer.

@wkumari
Copy link
Collaborator

wkumari commented Feb 16, 2017

This is intended to be special use names problems, not special use TLD problems.
Suggesting adding:
A special-use name may be a name that should be resolved using the
DNS protocol with no special handling. An example of this is 'IN-
ADDR.ARPA.' (this is an example of a special use name which is not a TLD)

... and will will further review / discuss.

@ggm-at-apnic
Copy link
Author

ok. so partly, this response is a function of a document name being sutld and then its intent being more than special use TLD, which its name implies. If your "fix" is to point out the name of a document is not the same as its content or purpose I am content, in as much as the distinction is understood.

but I understand the problem to be almost quintessentially about TLD. The idea that we can resolve the problem by flagging sub-domains as special, and the consequences, radically alters the agenda because almost all of the cited problems excluding community acceptance go away if a sub-domain of an existing domain is used: the authority of the IETF->IAB->IANA chain to modify the behaviour under .arpa is not contestable, so most of the process issues regarding "qui bono" and "who decides" go away.

EG, alt.arpa is identified as the "doesn't exist in the dns" domain and all gethostby*() functions are required to be modified to DTRT, and unmodified legacy code stuck with NXDOMAIN as a consequence, thats an entirely different set of problems to "by what authority is ALT chosen and delegated, along side names who paid $150,000 to get their existence" question.

@Abhayakara
Copy link
Owner

consensus is to go with Warren's clarification

@rdroms
Copy link
Collaborator

rdroms commented Mar 6, 2017

Edits completed.

@rdroms rdroms closed this as completed Mar 6, 2017
rdroms added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 6, 2017
Resolved following issues:

Issue #50: IETF precedence in special-use names registry -- Ted
Lemon #50

Issue #48: 4.1.2 cites sub-domains of .ARPA arguing for special
use TLD -- George Michaelson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-
tldr-sutld-ps/issues/48

Issue #47: 4.3 should be made more prominent -- George Michaelson
#47

Issue #43: Spell out SUDN and SUTLDN rather than use acronyms --
Russ Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/
issues/43

Issue #41: Reword bullet in Section 3 regarding Domain Name TLDs
that have been commandeered, as reported in SDO-ICANN-COLL -- Russ
Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/
issues/41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants