IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Tue, 26 May 2015 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rubensk@nic.br>
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 B810B1B3137 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.437
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 rU2u14HGlUmJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.nic.br [200.160.4.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA61B1B3138 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8241037F9; Tue, 26 May 2015 17:31:45 -0300 (BRT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.nic.br
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
Received: from mail.nic.br ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.nic.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s9_k1fLKuPpu; Tue, 26 May 2015 17:31:44 -0300 (BRT)
Received: from rubens.in.registro.br (3.195.net.registro.br [200.160.3.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 284581037F6; Tue, 26 May 2015 17:31:44 -0300 (BRT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1432672304; bh=0sol9OWFeWVJN5Tx502ew/bUxtDea9s5n2djdIbB8i4=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=CMFsDcwMK+RCec6wCeE+mCnvSQ4lxhpW5jh/vRY2ukxcqdD+DBf6CvvOqtgg9XSEv A+/w6aa5m+g0VsKTW0P4Umdh1bbe5dW2h3ZlAF3MCfu8Yy+OqWZ8pgDG5AoLm3ub3g GbG9ocAQD4KbUPbrWPg02NH5NVbTZZK0UvxSlJcI=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
In-Reply-To: <F28C4DE3-12CF-462D-BB55-5A02CA364173@interisle.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:31:43 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DFC8A733-1876-4362-B1AC-E7A7151FBF8F@nic.br>
References: <0CB7A66E-B6C9-4FE7-8452-172A5CF48895@gmail.com> <F28C4DE3-12CF-462D-BB55-5A02CA364173@interisle.net>
To: Lyman Chapin <lyman@interisle.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br 284581037F6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/48Jcng_Ryql43KFsWGk8TqOhnQE>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps
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, 26 May 2015 20:31:48 -0000

> Em 26/05/2015, à(s) 15:50:000, Lyman Chapin <lyman@interisle.net> escreveu:
> 
> Hi Suzanne -
> 
>> HOME/CORP/MAIL (draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02):
>> 
>> * This is the most controversial of the RFC 6761 drafts and the one most driven by policy concerns
> 
> It is not driven by policy concerns; it is driven by operational concerns, and I have heard almost no one in the WG discussion argue that these three names should *not* be withdrawn/reserved (and I say "almost" just to be safe, as I haven't checked thoroughly enough to omit it).

I'm curious about one of those TLDs: MAIL. Besides dotless "mail", which seems to hit the root at very high rate (lack of negative caching) and shouldn't be ever allowed to exist, and a few meaningful labels like local.mail*, I can't recall the reasoning for being concerned with <something-here>.mail.  

No matter whether one thinks the responsibility to deal with .MAIL lies with, what are the issues that people see with it ? 


Rubens




* From the first JAS namespace collision analysis still published at http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-name-collision-05aug13/pdf3WmZlrH3fo.pdf although not anymore published at original point of publication

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email