[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
drc at virtualized.org
Thu Sep 4 14:33:05 UTC 2014
On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> The IANA registries themselves are actually shared, e.g. the IPv4 space consists
>> of technical/reserved entries from various IETF specifications, and then general
> Please specify these entries.
As others have pointed out, there are several lists of these addresses. In addition, the IETF is continuing to standardize protocols that make use of specialized address blocks (e.g., enhancements to the protocols that punch holes in NATs are using well known “anycast” addresses allocated by IANA staff as a protocol parameter).
>> The same argument applies to DNS, in that
>> portions of the DNS space are actually defined by IETF (e.g. ".arpa") and these
>> entries have a different in origin than the general purpose portion of the DNS
>> root zone.
> Which is why they are easily separable. .arpa is just a TLD registry. It does not need to be run by the same entity that runs the DNS root zone any more than .com or .music needs to be run by the IANA.
As you note, the names that are used in the DNS are the trivial case. The far more interesting case are things that look, sound, smell, and feel like strings you’d use in the DNS but which are explicitly not to be used in the DNS. Examples include “.local”, “.onion”, “.gnu”, etc. There is, in fact, an RFC that lays out the requirements for the specification of such names within the IETF and the question of how collision between these non-DNS “domain names” and “real” domain names will be handled is an interesting one.
(ICANN CTO, but speaking for myself only)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the discuss