Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 08 February 2017 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49C8129BC6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:11:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 Ityaipfyn-My for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:11:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF887129B83 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 88364 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2017 15:11:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2017 15:11:23 -0000
Date: 8 Feb 2017 15:11:01 -0000
Message-ID: <20170208151101.14753.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20170208091536.vqwftrhpole33opl@nic.fr>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-D3s2Gd_bRvtADC14tjy13dWGLQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:11:25 -0000

In article <20170208091536.vqwftrhpole33opl@nic.fr> you write:
>Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real
>technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the
>registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to
>compile automatically the code for the various cases.

Considering the vastly different ways that software handles .local and
.onion and example.com and 10.in-addr.arpa, and that next thing to
come along (.homenet?) will likely be different from any of the
existing ones, this strikes me as akin to asking for a pony.

If you just want a list of the names so your recursive resolver can
stub them out, we already have that, of course.

R's,
John