IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] afasterinternet.com trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00

Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> Wed, 31 August 2011 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <alex@alex.org.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201D221F8EAA for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 bYH-hmeX8HQn for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.avalus.com (mail.avalus.com [IPv6:2001:41c8:10:1dd::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FE221F8E99 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.100.16] (87-194-71-186.bethere.co.uk [87.194.71.186]) by mail.avalus.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2033C5602B; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:08:48 +0100 (BST)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:08:47 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C381A5ACF01C734C6B80CA96@nimrod.local>
In-Reply-To: <20110831173043.GK99260@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110830162134.GB84494@shinkuro.com> <CA+9kkMCih-NWxaxBRD+9LphZEb2k+ce8NkNBm6HHubJ1kDO9TQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110831173043.GK99260@shinkuro.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org, draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] afasterinternet.com trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:07:24 -0000

--On 31 August 2011 13:30:43 -0400 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> 
wrote:

> Taking my hat off, I note that, if this opinion is correct, RFC
> Required appears to become a lower bar than Expert Review.  I am not
> sure that the IESG would agree with our interpretation, therefore.

Concentrating on the practical results of our deliberations rather than the
way we got there, and speaking as someone who is sceptical about the draft
in question, it seems to me that it would be a bad thing if a draft like
this (which whilst I might not like it, is certainly not entirely
speculative) neither can get a RFC1918-style allocation, nor relatively
easily achieve a 'proper' allocation; it's only going to encourage people
to self-allocate, and we are hardly short of code points.

Given there has to be some hurdle to getting a real allocation, I think
we should do both - assigning 256 code points to RFC1918-style use (i.e.
'beware - your number may clash with other RFC1918-style stuff but won't
clash with a real allocation') seems to me a no-brainer.

-- 
Alex Bligh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email