Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Suzanne Woolf <> Wed, 08 February 2017 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A532F129BC8 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:06:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 eGC_uxuXFeqB for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:06:15 -0800 (PST)
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 DC833129422 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:06:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w20so164337695qtb.1 for <>; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:06:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lirBHv1aNUfIXqUz40E4zMDixiixXLfcr6+BrW3Btn0=; b=qwqz9pgP9E/2IKKSbc0NEmmlh25kAHVrgq9w0p0oGy4i4cCKSZu3L0Q3YBaG+uvIho 6xg/GHYYZRvOaKwpMs+AZpq+5v0XqBq1GrNiJ2rrjMtdgaCViIRXN3r2tzN6qzH8JfX0 pC0B7RDvG1argpgEzxsa/bumKVAz23wbfJCMk8FgaYmO8JfR8uqORpW3s67r7FTMTyiY GFatWp2lMZQ5ZYPozuO3C+XjemUPOqiIzyFS/4v/HyoLpRNtlA1BdlpXggHDMOthhmge 2mINdHc+yBiTyFNb7xlLLuo4+DovAjDOpeVDxWIKVIvDWrm9CwIRvYY0DnSRf1Za6uQQ vFSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lirBHv1aNUfIXqUz40E4zMDixiixXLfcr6+BrW3Btn0=; b=ZrAVihYOwO/CMZrnYiI5CU4RMvcMVJjt0pJpgpJP6CpE9FWWiRe/vDERdT1P2RzEfb KiBC8h/9ZWi8JO1htDwwXUT38x1/f//Ov2nBVtQBg5tY2v6rClCRZCaCByoixusTWff0 KomnYUt/7WctQZcrcwd4cCNVw8AHeT8tfDO9vNl57IAzAuQ/DSadKmqyGPcysORKopy2 S0VFInZY8AS97Y4e5Q8c6PO6E0j1cQ1uJVja6oxUUa1swUzOZIG+nftvRx8DX80E1p3y JZIfW0091Er4hlhvNQ2iE7+IDJyjQvIXZZ2YHaoMug7XJoSln73SVk6yXgUkXnxbINz/ g1iA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n0GuUnIbFpsO0p4OOTp/P9VDVJMjbWUu/IL/m7QmHu1Eu6a9Og27FnkFCIiU0Xww==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p65mr19444913qtd.187.1486569973870; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c381:c20:4986:5f29:30fe:60bc? ([2601:181:c381:c20:4986:5f29:30fe:60bc]) by with ESMTPSA id t35sm6488740qtc.40.2017. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:06:11 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:06:16 -0000

Hi Stephane,

Thanks for the review, it’s helpful.

I’ll leave it to the editors to take the first pass at integrating your comments, but:

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <> wrote:
> Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real
> technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the
> registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to
> compile automatically the code for the various cases.

If you have a specific suggestion on how to improve the registry, please consider posting an internet-draft. 

The roadmap for DNSOP on special use names has for some time included the expectation that a problem statement would precede solutions, but that problem statement is in WGLC after extensive development, and we’ve returned the alt-tld draft to active status as well. 

We didn’t encourage proposed changes until we had some level of agreement on what problem(s) we might be attempting to solve. However, it seems we’ve now gotten that far.