[dns-operations] Input from dns-operations on NCAP proposal

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sat Jun 4 02:01:44 UTC 2022


On Fri, 3 Jun 2022, Brian Dickson wrote:
>> If this increases the number of names that will break
>> search lists from 1487 to 1488, how much of a problem is this likely to be
>> in practice, which leads back to ...
>>
> If it was ONLY a progression of 1487->1488, it might not be that bad (but
> again, that all depends on what number 1488 actually is.)
>
> What it is actually is an exercise in survivorship bias.
> Anyone who might have been impacted by any of the earlier rounds of
> expansion, will (likely) have learned their lesson.
> That lesson may depend on tribal knowledge, which might not be reliable
> enough for any previous victim to not be re-victimized.

Unfortunately, now we've circled back to where we started.  Remember that 
the NC in NCAP stands for Name Collision, and the whole point of the 
project is to figure out how risky it is to add familiar looking new 
names.

In the last round of TLD expansion they added over 1000 names but 
indefinitely deferred requests for .CORP .HOME and .MAIL which had well 
known existing uses.  So now I'm scratching my head, what are they hoping 
to learn from this exercise that wouldn't be totally dominated by the 
choice of name?  I'm tempted to suggest adding .BELKIN and see how many 
old routers fail.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


More information about the dns-operations mailing list