Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 27 March 2017 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1870128BB7 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 H1uyLV6POJhe for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54251127B31 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y18so58668133itc.0 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:09 -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=ityyh6VW2k8x9YGmZwW7Nw2m/G1nJ8jk6wHYw/aBoHI=; b=D5uD7qH9i+BazodQUKKluV5QODLdUWiqQbsoaiqp8F4xLP2nKt1P9nqHzMDO2ucaNk tq5AOfNu7UOkqE0NsiqkbWn9QNtqQDT57JPRhMTSkD1KuvbIGal9/VHNU3e03CH2elio u90fb92FjjSMmqHJxIhGlIIp7pR8tuOt/U8QTVQ8Kb3voP3BqPc6crzTzJOycvO3wKOc pT0cqSWy7jrLuYzobMEWT5b3Sgy4xA/iB/b9S0dIaLlIPQklM6XmITQoz2Nzybb//OC2 30Cegq8PPxqdwOqwPYJkFH9zkp9BE9xOllDa/ARbK+z6aOA81xUDMVOnYeJQ2b1m7rbc Y5wA==
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=ityyh6VW2k8x9YGmZwW7Nw2m/G1nJ8jk6wHYw/aBoHI=; b=uWh5V5lI8t5KtqMvcwy1tJmHKKXgzOofoS6BXUW5P0WZ+FPTkmwE/8nbViq5QisCNl p7V0JmHEJXnM8pSyJH65TXO13jjkk/FU9953X6icB4CiI4Djqh0lH71R6T6XWJ4740c+ PmcBQReFGNTDp5DxRjq6rsFVguF0Me5cyuCv0jpAfwVJbLltuDgiUfpL98En0LpztG9m wRVop0R7YrP485XIpYk4sD7NRFw1Ms7BT+MhuV22+jfbZRJCEmy61Bika0F0YsVBx4PT hbogMpTPlRXinW/qp0kr2UZSj8wU55NWDVWwhZ4stLc4FLxtx788PJ1RYssNLXUVkE1V /yEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2o5ZImDGtSiXYB2JJQHOADqDp45x/JTKmkLkAQOihPxP+Bvr1aXoum0kOKIQCcQw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i63mr6928738itd.16.1490582288670; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id r30sm4999557ioi.56.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85723910-4A51-4582-BADC-237A8D269103"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:38:06 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IETF dnsop Working Group <>
To: George Michaelson <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 02:38:11 -0000

On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:36 PM, George Michaelson <> wrote:
> Its only my personal opinion, but I think the opposition to use of
> .ARPA is almost entirely fictive at this point.

I take it that since this is just your personal opinion, we need not discuss it any further?

Forgive me, but I do not think remarks of this sort are constructive.   If there is a reason why the working group consensus should not be followed, it is not that the working group's consensus on the question is "fictive," whatever that means.

My opposition to .arpa, such as it is, is that it suggests a hierarchy that is not present.   I think it's bad UI design, and that's why I prefer .homenet.   This is not a "fictive" objection.   You could argue that I am wrong, or that my opinion on the topic doesn't matter, or that even though I am right, other factors are more important, or that allowing the working group to decide matters like this is wrong, or that this is all irrelevant because we can't have it anyway.

But calling it "fictive" is disrespectful of reasoned discourse, and I encourage those various folks on this thread who have made similar arguments to please try to do better.   I mean no disrespect by this—I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of me making similarly bad arguments.   I just felt it necessary to point out.