IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Sat, 04 July 2020 06:59 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 9AAC13A0CA3 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 23:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 nPz5og1TEUxn for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 23:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) (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 73C143A0CA2 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 23:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw10.schlund.de ([10.72.76.66]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MGCMz-1k6jDW2SO7-00FD7s; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 08:59:09 +0200
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 02:59:08 -0400
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: dispatch@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1425839401.61842.1593845948843@email.ionos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev31
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:496lvEmVW12wooPCfggqvl8iSopqBnHFARf/bSZ/Do3DfRcuI3k KVMhsRKQxK3EtTJM3GnMSHUjBsjcF5kHo9h/59mz8uKSrjVIFW56yeLYeYcI+VAd1mXxkWi 58V9rjKipJOZWwfpW6fcyDnbnxivPnULG/iRLDBFecxMaCMtSgDN5aco8vkCHlzZECpfuv5 vR7ajDXGTiPesCpRmYdOQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:yALBNVhjduY=:jP52+euVjCd5gkBAkCJXow 7dSN8vcoFLYZOs0KTFbnxYbrTR0935HneNphpURxibGp9Vp6ZJNj+rhdTVIygfjms8jCdVqhH BHkUdSUqrWrxQGNb9485Uuh+Hv68K4+LpHb94+qOIg+FvVmmvcxwqm79kgBN2DcqgXg9Uvl8b 6dHzyzfXscxj9TviGnEKZaGrtoJiGRonH5Z4BCeC6jS+rB6esHjP+9Uxj84Z3aPOP9Uzlp3An pvOd93ciIDMbLYUBMitJuJJH6EMsCm+wuIq7FecvPm2wQgcssUJ4hRfAYXLqeJ2zAur98rhHF 62eDrI+3SoSNJxjCJvR1iu6D/4NNphzKpr1gCj4gaIFOm/aOFINmHgGk+BojJ5g3s0pgVvFeD XR3u3BF2hjZGTEgzElWaAd6wQB5ypajHdiyBT/9iHB/4JICfSmZ5aXWjk3SdzvaKkXCB9Z1G4 6k+oedL1O4uFGI3e3R5Gs6gTINdiu38ygDc+d7Tptnwl1f3NNTd7Qiith9ddCCXJdw90/3xOn cMWCmX4hEeUojaVq302YhfkCvzQZ27BaqLW9wqVim+k6e9tBf0tet5g94yiJ7FcWWXR2vD/D7 UQJRj3AQRhxNs8JZ/O8KMZJLLsEC6QJAsPUhnGtcJ+j6tTD4cH7+HdPpqWhdyF35f3tdck0ni zlafSq9DbpfZ3siVMU5N1akEr6WMdd772reibBvGiBNGRXmt5E3eYjbvwRikmhQKtr0jJQMsL h1tedUPP+IOD1Xnj/vH9Ia7+/InBvYOkbKRU+hjwCEInQrB4Uv5neUq88ECAdzgLFsmJ9QIQr u8+nmETb2mZVaCy8PBlkBBD/ZOsSZHhY2IBf9Un3IoJkp1g+jv7v4NaOyM9duwdz1VgJBOe
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/o_Kb_wD2WhfTVXQ3f32WW6RRKqw>
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: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 06:59:17 -0000

> 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