Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 04 February 2014 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9721A02D8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:32:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 nFWMjuZ8tZBJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CAF1A02D2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUvBDF+QVabgeRFhvSK1mdobr+zTMFFHT@postini.com; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:32:07 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1AB1B82F7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18EA190052; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:32:06 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140204012148.GE16180@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:32:04 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1397C673-86CD-40A1-9055-17B3B74FAC80@nominum.com>
References: <20140130004530.C660CE086E0@rock.dv.isc.org> <20140203151958.GA1673@nic.fr> <6BE00F1A-1F8D-4B30-A5C7-10E7466109C2@vpnc.org> <ACF06352-98E5-4368-A8C9-5AB50783C2D3@hopcount.ca> <20140203212333.1259EE44493@rock.dv.isc.org> <CF15D98C.197C0B%jonne.soininen@renesasmobile.com> <CAKr6gn1dpWz3LP9bpA2JebRDSN7GeOW65+Q1tW_dv=9KzgZaCQ@mail.gmail.com> <A6D7CE2E-BF9C-4077-A571-0C455E5DAE1F@nominum.com> <CAKr6gn08xayJCK_GtGNeYbet6tD=GwPJoSYL3tbRXomfxckHWA@mail.gmail.com> <ED2AE016-766D-41DE-A428-DEC49A350E8C@nominum.com> <20140204012148.GE16180@mx1.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 01:32:08 -0000

On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; wrote:
>    If you want to use a name in DNS protocol slots, then you need a DNS
>    name.  You didn't get a DNS name, and instead you used a label
>    that wasn't under your control.

This is the "you didn't follow process" argument.   But they couldn't have followed process—there was no realistic process for allocating a special-use TLD before 6761 was published.   So this amounts to an emotional appeal, which isn't much of a justification for the change you are demanding of them.

I absolutely get why you are saying this.   It's a pretty good emotional appeal.   But we shouldn't act on it, because that's all it is.   We have a process, and they are following it.   We should see it through.