Subject: Re: [dnsext] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01.txt> (Special-Use Domain Names) to Proposed Standard

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:32:38 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Ralph Droms wrote:

> FYI; review and comment requested...
...
>  This document describes what it means to say that a DNS name is
>  reserved for special use, when reserving such a name is appropriate,
>  and the procedure for doing so.

I observe that the document is not putting any names in the registry 
it is creating.  Are there names that should be in the registry?  If 
so, name them here.  If not, why are creating an empty registry at 
this time?

And I'll offer a broad "me too" to Joe Abley's comments re: the 
specifics of the registry.

-- Sam

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:41:58 +0000

* Samuel Weiler:

> it is creating.  Are there names that should be in the registry?

LOCAL.  If understand things correctly, it's widely used to trigger
Multicast DNS resolution in combined DNS/Multicast DNS environments.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <[email-masked]>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:53:24 +0100

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 12:41:58PM +0000,
 Florian Weimer <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 26 lines which said:

> LOCAL. 

It is not mentioned in draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01
(otherwise, I would have challenged the right of Apple to hijack TLD
by unilateral decision).

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:59:01 +0000

> It is not mentioned in draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01

Wrong document?

> (otherwise, I would have challenged the right of Apple to hijack TLD

It's not just Apple, not even close.

> by unilateral decision).

IIRC, previous attempts predating Multicast DNS to reserve this name
have failed.  That might have been one reason why RFCs have been
reluctant to mention special names.

Oh, and if we cannot put LOCAL. into the registry now, I'm quite
certain that the registry will always remain empty. 8-)

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:57:04 -0500

> Multicast DNS resolution in combined DNS/Multicast DNS environments.

In draft-jabley-reserved-domain-names-00, my initial registry was specified as:

   +-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
   | Domain Name | Description                             | Reference |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
   | TEST        | Recommended for use in testing of       | [RFC2606] |
   |             | current or new DNS related code         |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE     | Recommended for use in documentation or | [RFC2606] |
   |             | as examples                             |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | INVALID     | Recommended for use in documentation or | [RFC2606] |
   |             | as examples                             |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | LOCALHOST   | Traditionally statically defined in     | [RFC2606] |
   |             | host DNS implementations as having an A |           |
   |             | record pointing to the loop back IP     |           |
   |             | address, and reserved for such use      |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE.COM | Available for use as examples           | [RFC2606] |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE.NET | Available for use as examples           | [RFC2606] |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE.ORG | Available for use as examples           | [RFC2606] |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+

I didn't include LOCAL because there wasn't a suitable published document for it, and the registry I defined had registration procedures specified as "document published with iab approval". However, if this registry existed, I would expect that Stuart's bonjour draft would be extended with an IANA Considerations section that specified relevant names be added to the registry.

I never submitted draft-jabley-reserved-domain-names-00 when I wrote it, but since I've referred to it a couple of times I will now do so in case that's of any use to anybody. I continue to think that Stuart's discussion of the issues is valuable, but I think the registry creation would benefit from more concise direction.

Joe