Re: [apps-discuss] "finding registered domains"

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3FC21F8D98 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KMJ0Denr6Pke for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CF121F8C5C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (dhcp-2430.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.36.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AEC58A031 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:56:23 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:55:53 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130313175552.GC45769@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <CAL0qLwY9YyLpHF9XYbm5zCC1+3PzCtdcmgyC6eiQ-P7QBKiDyA@mail.gmail.com> <20130312184051.GE39324@mx1.yitter.info> <CAL0qLwaD_6k36ZzAFO_KKkP=ud_Cd=-4P+vH_UQ58p6BcuY25A@mail.gmail.com> <20130312202442.GE41728@mx1.yitter.info> <CAL0qLwbg6CxtGO=b+iEtDXw3-FG1Rjr1QG_hcgxiGo5P7fPqgA@mail.gmail.com> <20130312205006.GI41728@mx1.yitter.info> <CAL0qLwb_X=WeNE8Hp9HWnd64OvZCu0bgdmDaw5Gct_VEsY45MA@mail.gmail.com> <20130313032655.GD41909@mx1.yitter.info> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05600CB2@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CAMm+LwgydcQaSY-e3UeyB0AF=CpRe506_Zt5W+rRqBXYUTLFew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgydcQaSY-e3UeyB0AF=CpRe506_Zt5W+rRqBXYUTLFew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] "finding registered domains"
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:56:25 -0000

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:07:45AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> The way I would word this problem is that any protocol that depends on
> more than 5% of parties to deploy before it provides value is doomed
> and to be successful it probably needs to provide value at a much
> lower deployment.

I think the proposal I offer needs no more work by anyone tht your
proposal, and its deployment costs are exactly the same.  The only
difference between them is that the proposal I've made covers more
cases because it doesn't depend on the dodgy "public delegation point"
notion.  That's not the problem you have.  For instance, my employer
(Dyn) operates a service in dyndns.org that accepts host names from
customers and puts them in a zone.  There is no delegation.  Yet
almost every name in the dyndns.org zone is in a different
administrative realm.  If SOPA existed, we could signal this by
putting a SOPA record with the root target at dyndns.org.  None of our
customers would need to do anything.

Best,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com