Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 26 January 2018 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C7F127337 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:24:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 rq6rYgxisUAH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 064BF1241F5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id m11so25183284iti.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:24:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=2UG2vJeyFtYMAINT4y1Au1eoCUtj6/LNZMjouP3SDv4=; b=nZTGfC0v6dsK87FwFVWk0YNnHwxwCf2s5jQ4Y8dWdzXIUxVgW2TVEbcDN0aLOYK9Lz zrT+fyjVFaNnS0b28Q8SNFLohxs1fSpdBR+Rkamf+R1jzcNfy/cy9QsXo5riVfNbroxK k2kRzu80bPA+FWoIqinPzbclRS/Mk/TlpvbR37j5TtGGawHrREtJbpALlG5AdgSDvnwm gu/2VCHrB7etdMwrkcaGeGtQt4c1H71U+FDcVGkU0vl5iItDLS0YJulxEXT8Nn0Yhh/B tr0nVZDpXNSOFWBu18p/tlyGJOBFRrudR/4k27h/8m8/UQU3HmXSs9iW39KHcYwvcLqQ xziQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=2UG2vJeyFtYMAINT4y1Au1eoCUtj6/LNZMjouP3SDv4=; b=rBRRc5dmXpqpEprm1QUl+PH8CTUr2G7vfYU97fU/clbGB7fXyFGUMl4csI/S52KJKs Pi+hvJpOIGl47u+V+2tRp+RBDMQJ0lx/QLp3UsuoSucG3uO4ej0jXS3/EeCbH8/z3EJC rtAX3ZNjOzK4bxH9IgpOfLwtALBGRK3U19pqiC+prxz9Eq+Cu198JJOkmTuXZq8RPTD9 OOqeZpb0c1EFEyx38/UFpcsdliuPICYY3ZQ1u3Yoad+XDWd100oHtIQ3ueccJDwALDhn 3aN3poyVvtHpRs1bisRRKMDfzdn26UovzzhcsY+bMh/r7nhhV2izAQpwBWzOivXPX4S7 68/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf5jr0dazHkHTU3nCbQM5ecGdy5EdkLgWMQzHdJf2zR79sIu1KY j/8L4D95to+poP9RflZbRziw0+xLN3Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x22633eQRsuxjyO0V4hQLItFgsSupoG5Q3HXgPNI5Cv/dRfOrJsRRVX2STaGGGVNLThL/t/Uw2w==
X-Received: by 10.36.83.21 with SMTP id n21mr18199926itb.74.1516994655343; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.19.131.146] ([12.130.117.63]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v41sm883369iov.3.2018.01.26.11.24.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:24:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <4BA8E4FF-D9DE-4BD6-8D74-ACDAF1E7C67B@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C5E1F3DB-52C3-4415-AFAF-E8937E14C0D5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:24:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdyJ0mDQVacv3D=LbwuZZ4dwABqSzQrxd4dbpzeBDFshQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
References: <9DCE2F63-EE37-4865-B9D6-6B79BBE05593@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcSirZyfr7PKhf=ttMxf=DeMVeJPNPn=R-HS2cH3Z-nPw@mail.gmail.com> <8e69dac2-359b-d528-45e5-05604f4dbf90@nic.cz> <CAJE_bqdeDRmN78dE5VUYDB6y-fXfUK9gSOkjJxszcP0WjjR9dw@mail.gmail.com> <3eb04472-82f0-9dd9-0922-4e6cd4f825e6@nic.cz> <CAJE_bqdyJ0mDQVacv3D=LbwuZZ4dwABqSzQrxd4dbpzeBDFshQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5A8dPrT7jyWY-oA0RLRRb6LPYEg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:24:18 -0000

On Jan 26, 2018, at 2:20 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> IMO, however, that doesn't mean we can casually use the fact to
> silence objections when the requirement level might actually be too
> strong.  In my understanding and also according to my experiences,
> MUST requirements are in fact very strong.

Can you talk about why you personally think MUST is too strong here?   It's interesting to discuss it on a meta-level, but I think we might get lost in the weeds doing that.   If you are feeling uneasy about this requirement, I suspect that there is a use case lurking down there somewhere under the discomfort.   Bringing it up to the surface might help.