IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@dropnumber.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203803A0EB8 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:34:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tBuI_zPqzGw9 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3642E3A1038 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:34:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.76.59]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus004 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MoOQu-1jxFjY1viq-00okNr; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:34:44 +0100
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:34:43 -0500
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: dispatch@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1109305790.11874.1605112483803@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <1425839401.61842.1593845948843@email.ionos.com>
References: <1425839401.61842.1593845948843@email.ionos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev26
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:BmuDWMyJ6eFjyK+k8fsOtxevUoLcQRCw4xr4wM9EpbrK7YP0KeV 1DwDz/M8G0uIA+g0ZCzxLV5oy7ZXINW6rKWyTOIiQmypEv11AyJDbAzl3g6bPkgumvq3z9z XSQezHiur42gALTGP1O/DOJVTuE2clFMDWl8so2I6AOXJqwn3p5/fAcFmFYXDEps0s5EKN7 d7GJILVcFAVRi5koyUhRg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Op+2pNCO66g=:R3A0bf9uZ1Pbwm3vbX+Vt5 8t7YZ5gU1YqqMokVGj3V141WmIzsRI/r+GdDjNdcTLCEGFjVquyagTueAPbACdgGEM/bQH40+ fZxOzRk6EU0a1jNoHEBXe5mj5Yr0zDnnu6eNZZ6jpPeUrMzXZsmjAr+tABZl8yHLtzJtiqYzT 8kE4bxKa5aBDV+s5/ZB06WrzvIRrgHfmpPOsAg4vtad9Sb0QeICzUpmRbzKSULaC2HPqRa8p3 Ww1M4+JBROPiOGtTpJEI525n4pr8m1WEeze6piNjgbjNpV79L4s9NHLtpmUo1aWBqPICxasvG BplkxhhOwLCx3MgxC/1izTNjwcn6ZNz84yQmfp5tCAiqDzUnFLZxvHDAen2EWjDUH4JiWAuXe J0K8iUaQ3mW6dsXLH/i+9XCUErnRxvOAoUu+qw7TIk5vyaLO6JyokzXTzf2lj9zRCJn1s0ftk cc+5wpNi+A==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/3jLkaYBT-6Fa0osDPKIllfGaCrM>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:34:57 -0000

text version:
> I'm hoping for a quick dispatch of this, but happy to discuss.


What's the hurry Ted?

I know you know your stuff but this draft seems somewhat "corrupted"
In your introduction you're talking about registering scheme "NAMES"
and then state "..there is no way in the current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the requirement." ??
Section 5 of RFC3405 has nothing to do with that.
Maybe it's BCP 35 [RFC7595] that needs the update. But hey, at least we
both agree that uri.arpa registrations don't currently require permanent
status.



> On 07/04/2020 2:59 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping for a quick dispatch of this, but happy to discuss.
> 
> 
> What's the hurry Ted?
> 
> I know you know your stuff but this draft seems somewhat "corrupted" 
> In your introduction you're talking about registering scheme "NAMES" 
> and then state "..there is no way in the current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the requirement." ?? 
> Section 5 of RFC3405 has nothing to do with that. 
> Maybe it's BCP 35 [RFC7595] that needs the update. But hey, at least we 
> both agree that uri.arpa registrations don't currently require permanent 
> status.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email