Cary Karp (.museum) on "sameness"

[555]

"the only way to ensure "sameness"
between entire trees (using pretty much any definition) is by the TLD
operator not delegating administrative authority for lower-level zones
to any other entity. And since that would have no effect on the need for
harmonizing the configuration of all the daemons in the corresponding
application space, the unary steward of the namespace would need to have
similar control over the server side of the application space as well."

http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2010/msg02502.html

To view all discussions from this WG:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2010/maillist.html

[Rubber Duck]

"the only way to ensure "sameness"
between entire trees (using pretty much any definition) is by the TLD
operator not delegating administrative authority for lower-level zones
to any other entity. And since that would have no effect on the need for
harmonizing the configuration of all the daemons in the corresponding
application space, the unary steward of the namespace would need to have
similar control over the server side of the application space as well."

http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2010/msg02502.html

To view all discussions from this WG:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2010/maillist.html

But the lower level zones are simply domain names. Doesn't this mean that the TLD operator cannot sell domain names? Doesn't that sort of negate the point of a DNS?

[555]

I Believe he means sub domain level and under?

[Rubber Duck]

I Believe he means sub domain level and under?

That is precisely the bit I don't get. As soon as I buy a domain, I get the rights to run a directory of sub-domains from my own servers if I wish. That has always been the case. It is the premise on which many businesses are founded. Are the arseholes suddenly seeking to change something that frankly they have no way of controlling anyway? What kind of idiots are sitting on ICANN committees these days?

[555]

From reading some of this IETF WG discussion, my understanding tells me that regardless of which method of "sameness" aliasing they choose to implement (BNAME,DNAME,CNAME,SHADOW), neither is 100% safe against abuse (even if it's only via sophisticated and unlikely scenarios, it is theoretically possible).

To prevent any risks to the DNS, it is possible that for the above reason, only the registry will be able to setup any sub domains or lower level domains for the registrant and it won't be done by the registrant like it is today with ASCII domains...(Cary Karp:the TLD
operator not delegating administrative authority for lower-level zones
to any other entity).

No idea if it's even possible to do multiplying in the numbers the big registries will see, or how they think to implement it, but maybe some mechanism that allows limited changes that are in no way allowing every registrant risking the DNS.

If you read several posts prior to the last one, you will see that the real problem is still communication. ICANN Never really defined what it wants the IETF to find a solution to.

[Rubber Duck]

From reading some of this IETF WG discussion, my understanding tells me that regardless of which method of "sameness" aliasing they choose to implement (BNAME,DNAME,CNAME,SHADOW), neither is 100% safe against abuse (even if it's only via sophisticated and unlikely scenarios, it is theoretically possible).

To prevent any risks to the DNS, it is possible that for the above reason, only the registry will be able to setup any sub domains or lower level domains for the registrant and it won't be done by the registrant like it is today with ASCII domains...(Cary Karp:the TLD
operator not delegating administrative authority for lower-level zones
to any other entity).

No idea if it's even possible to do multiplying in the numbers the big registries will see, or how they think to implement it, but maybe some mechanism that allows limited changes that are in no way allowing every registrant risking the DNS.

If you read several posts prior to the last one, you will see that the real problem is still communication. ICANN Never really defined what it wants the IETF to find a solution to.

I am still either completely lost or just dumb founded.

[555]

I won't even try and go into details, as i also far from understand the technical side of things.

I don't know when they will conclude the work and what the preferred way of implementation will be.

For newer members tha't are not on top of where thing stand...

Two things are certain:
The work will be concluded and they are highly likely to finish all the remaining work on all fronts within 12 months.
And if you own пример.com , you will also own пример.ком and no one else can have that very "real" idn.idn