Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 23 March 2017 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A5C129476 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhaIWKKTWfIB for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59C2F12947E for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i34so178004830qtc.0 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=eXc3jgLMPgf23tom7RBWU78Ig90UYdfgS240J30lWhk=; b=q8tKQo1xELMcSAa3mfMoj/XRIj+M+WGmAyojllFTjmguuEuv77RXooHxljl+2AYhNR 9Njhj8PGPA3c0JN2dyM9glz4OgAx82fD3i1U4UWdJskoKU8vAsNE/Ov08dRPCh5OX5zI DSB3RxDTV36ylyQZGWOLiDtaqhydkIcxR1gvOVKw06jJ+8J4Th1XBx2+ueDnvZYeh8Co a6gYNLOQF8FL4NZKBhDNwrl+adqsThj1JW9E+LDADMNvLcAkj0rtfsCSxF3rhoI48Ijb NG+y5uGeXgU4ceAU6PWSlG8b4wYAFWz/11ndWPbp32syvBHrlAss+or1qMydqQ7pU00c 5ibA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=eXc3jgLMPgf23tom7RBWU78Ig90UYdfgS240J30lWhk=; b=jbQFLsRhhDje7HAFg1OIpgB8Z58vsZ4hAC1Oh84OhaVKD1p1PXkhw06fOWjbYdLS03 By8Ypfls/ANJH/J1bYzmzh4oZAMr/ESCI3uU4uW+nkg/LU0ndZ5X8TWj40tTMdgPYuOs RSLzH9NI78zm/QmtTqJoOzVP/qJWYGxa0eWkrUb+fZcArfxy7q4ruRdf1OzezKXJLptK OX4666ViXuBPhB+f3PtK85s10t/IG58BN+w3ll6KSkSWWXBhr3jwe0MQkBoBLwucqTOW 5IAGLOy2S5OJ4xNuSJ7f8S89R0eRyMjXH5inWYCtkLn2M6ZJ97wygGeN4UPFBVurMVOy gJHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2k+OQNg1NZ/P7zm9PL6kPK9aVEM6wPJcco3AUglfuCngYhgs35/9NhRRyC/O6rNA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id y88mr3048889qtd.104.1490281631276; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id e19sm3395001qta.68.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_61089B89-26A3-4190-97A5-34873AD5D48F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:07:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1703230956550.53811@ary.qy>
To: John R Levine <>
References: <20170323042741.79108.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1703230956550.53811@ary.qy>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] .arpa
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:07:16 -0000

On Mar 23, 2017, at 10:00 AM, John R Levine <> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the homenet WG who regularly engages with ICANN, through AC's or SO's or the like?

Possibly one of the two working group chairs.   But how is this relevant?

What's going on here is that we've stumbled over a gap in expectations between IETF participants and the general I* leadership, including ICANN.   What the MoU says is pretty clear, although it certainly could have been a lot clearer, and perhaps many fewer tears would have been shed over this if it had been clearer.

The problem is not that homenet are naive, or that ICANN is difficult, or anything like that.   It's that we are treading new ground.   This is ground we need to tread.   If in fact asking ICANN for delegations in cases of technical uses under the MoU is the wrong thing to do, we should know that.   If it is the right thing to do, we should have a process for doing it.  If the way the document asks is impolitic, we should fix that—it's certainly not what was intended.

I really don't know why we're arguing about this here.