Re: [DNSOP] AD review: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 01 June 2017 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 211D112EC2A; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 06:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vxMV8OgAINaW; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 06:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C191D12EC28; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 06:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 19so35508323qke.2; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 06:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=F771uD0mOUt/qc8cW+wmhuSTz7ckAA0f/6xWQ6Z5K1w=; b=tUjSMf9qV2DedHwV1kMwqeRAg5x/+CPeBcCBJ2sgVRwaT3A7M22RwCnieYBoZTLFZs kVa5XDI72RyhBrNLByC3bMu2sz503aRxi0sjcb0D9ZwNJfwZpLIAr2z/vT9jb/BUTt68 Dw3CJKXTlBAdD5XpN/74SLCguOB88X6K7Jd05C/JF4YRb47uixEcKMxr5WGlUlYiwLPy Z9L4vIux9OrzFWoJPgap9r5H85Woz+bS/nJLsB7wxi5oIYe5ne838ejahBn/OwwFX+dB y5CvTmdZEyE8r24J9aje7W7OYnGI5UaHCKRTXSwBqQw2d07/g8HchIR8jyJQoNsj1d5o 9Stw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=F771uD0mOUt/qc8cW+wmhuSTz7ckAA0f/6xWQ6Z5K1w=; b=XJ3kUL1me6Kx2yMjkRjNRweU2nrq5uIaP0bGB+QX3ASPoqLZGCf//YkSPu/8N1qCky nXFYuBreDUUIQyWVtV9Sa7Qxh06f/xhfTrkPFRuTV20VQLwAYUVOz2mtZTgUJ/RddnB7 GLCkAmBHYZUMkIV0dORtr1y8nBvc+Whk1wbw+KUudR44nVrvmokdPNR+5YjuF6ptyKVP SxT30xr//xcrgkyi4+klpOpawPll1SSvP87Nm/xqmaeL2aVZHD29tdsZsqo46pU95nsi HIlHlY32gwE66JamV176NtAZrd7e8vlMTf0QiTvh/TphrcoRCinKbmCBYotkP0Bdg32k sOhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcC7TfQD1NgREZFYp5w5X6rUSJDECiRdoeql05U0YFJ86PpAtTVG Tq2uFLkpOsq8gkD64So=
X-Received: by 10.55.191.6 with SMTP id p6mr1477404qkf.162.1496322285991; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 06:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:1018:a4e0:80e0:4817? ([2601:18f:801:600:1018:a4e0:80e0:4817]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g6sm12462553qkb.48.2017.06.01.06.04.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Jun 2017 06:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <2CB78C49-F906-411E-AC32-A18577B476A7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_39037713-4E4C-459F-8A14-4181246271DD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:04:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <38aae5ba-80d5-1f5c-0263-459de3ed7bda@cisco.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps.all@ietf.org, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <03bebcc5-ba95-9bbe-be07-6efb2034f9d6@cisco.com> <38aae5ba-80d5-1f5c-0263-459de3ed7bda@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-DT_tvNlYkiM0EK4jrISgvKNvR4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] AD review: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 13:04:49 -0000

Thanks for the review and helpful comments, Benoit.

Ted, Warren - I'm login to be tied up with some family stuff through the weekend.  If none of us get to it, I can process Benoit's comments Monday.

- Ralph

> On May 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear authors,
> 
> Here is my AD review.
> 
> 
> - 
>    This section presents a list of problems that have been identified
>    with respect to the assignment of Special-Use Domain Names.
>    Solutions to these problems, including their costs or tradeoffs, are
>    out of scope for this document. 
> 
>    There is a broad diversity of opinion about this set of problems.
>    Not every participant agrees that each of the problems enumerated in
>    this document is actually a problem.  This document takes no position
>    on the relative validity of the various problems that have been
>    enumerated.  Its focused purposes are to enumerate those problems,
>    provide the reader with context for thinking about them and provide a
>    context for future discussion of solutions.
> 
> So you want to write something such as  ... regardless of whether the problems are valid ones AND regardless of the ownership (IETF, IANA, ICANN, or ...) 
> And it seems that you didn't try to categorize the problems per ownership (this is an IETF or ICANN problem, as an example).
> I guess that this is the way you approached this document, right? You should document this.
> 
> - 
> gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC
> 7719 [RFC7719]
> 
> gTLD is not strictly defined in RFC7719, only TLD
> 
> - correct the .home section in 4.2.7, which is solved with Errata ID: 4677 
> 
> 
> MINOR
> - 
>    [SDO-ICANN-DAG]
>               Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain
>               Names registry", October 2015,
>               <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook- <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>
>               full-04jun12-en.pdf <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>>
> 
> Don't you have a more up to date reference (2012)?
> First page of this document is: "Currently the namespace consists of 22 gTLDs and over 250 ccTLDs operating on various models."
> -
>    o  There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due
>       process for a variety of purposes [SDO-ICANN-COLL <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04#ref-SDO-ICANN-COLL>].  The status of
>       these names need to be clarified and recorded to avoid future
>       disputes about their use.
> 
> I don't understand the sentence "There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due
>       process for a variety of purposes", with a reference that speaks about "Name Collision in the DNS".
> 
> 
> EDITORIAL:
> - "in in". Two occurences in
> TLD Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC 7719
> [RFC7719]
> gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC
> 7719 [RFC7719]
> 
> - OLD:
>    Special-Use Domain Name  A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use
>       Domain Names registry.
> NEW:
>    Special-Use Domain Name  A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use
>       Domain Names registry [SDO-IANA-SUDR].
> 
> - OLD:
>    The history of RFC 6762 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762> is documented in substantial detail in
>    Appendix H <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04#appendix-H>
> 
> NEW: 
>    The history of RFC 6762 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762> is documented in substantial detail in
>    Appendix H of RFC 6762 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04#appendix-H>
> 
> - Expand SSAC on the first occurrence.
>  
> Regards, Benoit
>