[PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Avri,

did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several
meetings and asked for specific actions?
my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I
definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about
name collision in durban (report not published yet)
can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC,
ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?

Best,

Rafik


2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

> Hi
>
> The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be
> begging as a policy issue.
>
> SSAC45 <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-045-en.pdf> came
> out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we
> slept through the warning.
> We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never
> looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming
> up, perhaps something needs to be done.
>
> Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very
> political issue.
>
> When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure
> what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing,
> but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite
> wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
>
> avri
>
> Interesting article at:
> http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
>
> And an IETF note
>
> From RFC 6762
>
> Appendix G <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762#appendix-G>.  Private DNS Namespaces
>
>    The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
>    implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
>    continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
>    for Microsoft Windows [B4W <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762#ref-B4W>], Linux, and other platforms.
>
>    Some network operators setting up private internal networks
>    ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
>    have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
>    top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
>    for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
>    Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
>    names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
>    network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
>    potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
>    given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
>    same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
>    this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
>    top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
>    domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
>    following top-level domains have been used on private internal
>    networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
>    this purpose:
>
>       .intranet.
>       .internal.
>       .private.
>       .corp.
>       .home.
>       .lan.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130804/686673ea/attachment.html>