Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 06 January 2014 21:32 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 6E9FF1AE256 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:32:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 HubzuX5qWhUh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F941AE251 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-08-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C3228A031 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:32:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:32:01 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140106213201.GJ10517@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20131231234421.GA5732@mx1.yitter.info> <52C48A4A.6090303@in.tum.de> <4C051985-6E70-463A-9672-02657842754D@vpnc.org> <52C5DA5C.1090605@grothoff.org> <20140102221823.GF8050@mx1.yitter.info> <20140106084704.GC27479@nic.fr> <20140106154859.GE10080@mx1.yitter.info> <DBE20231-BE59-41F4-B690-A74BC407BBC6@nominum.com> <20140106205417.GC10517@mx1.yitter.info> <011B3D37-DA87-4055-9755-8519B7014F12@icsi.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <011B3D37-DA87-4055-9755-8519B7014F12@icsi.berkeley.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
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: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:32:12 -0000
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:56:53PM -0800, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > > You'd like to think that, but sorry no. They are seen all the time: No, that's different. Now you're saying that sometimes people use these for purposes other than what's documented, so they hand them around. If _that's_ the case, then on top of everything else the documentation in this case is wrong, and therefore the argument for the allocation is bad. Look, I'm not opposed to these allocations in principle, but if we're going to have two completely different ways of registering top level domains and they're going to be responsible to two completely different allocation bodies until the actual moment of registration with IANA, then we are going to have to be _extremely careful_ with how we do this. It's true that .local was sort of a prior example, but as Paul already pointed out there are quite significant differences in the way that emerged. Not the least of the differences is that .local got going in an environment in which most of us were in a position to assume the root zone was fairly small and fairly stable. Those assumptions are now violated, and the plans for that violation were announced a few years ago. Conditions are different, and I think it appropriate therefore to respond differently. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothoff-ie… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Christian Grothoff
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Christian Grothoff
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Guangqing Deng
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Andrew Sullivan
- [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-spec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Christian Grothoff
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Hoffman
- [DNSOP] special names process & context Re: More … Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothof… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-… Stephane Bortzmeyer