Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Mon, 27 March 2017 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 3FFBB127876 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.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 dnyN4t7uB6Vh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (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 2A956127735 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id r69so37167759vke.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L22yWPj/31mhp73ilSdvoLyiRjEP65Ze23IQyghx1v4=; b=McJuzS+3MfbkP5KDRmEfYLjuWWe7ExnEnbZM1OmyV8H7hJ/1rBYL8NdFpRNR1makG7 A81zO/aYWjGm+RcI7N7HSFpYXKAcMnatL0LmeTui2F+FBCYDgVfsWwHKg2bVtPNib+D3 RtwfdyuKJqdVSAb77lLYAkjN7CiPoMiBKC7onK5xrm9VOS13mgGIgllYHQ09TOBL/lKh Ow0Fbmy7ZfnrxaaLiSMLrSyOdqCAf2t+8Iyycr4wU4VacZbNtgp51FmfJTBG+4d+Meq3 AI1AY3tdZGC/bUX8Ku3TAhQCPOxOM8uzs1d3G/II7ClK4FWAFhiZD3RdJEvtYH4Nqv4y j99A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L22yWPj/31mhp73ilSdvoLyiRjEP65Ze23IQyghx1v4=; b=sTApEGUSKjxv6Pl6ln5YNKVfG3mFj8DzXeHt0KGmopMYN0giG4oO+ONoJ3jUEgYGCK BYclPDKnDSy6hQkgadRJvDlVg4kb1gqyaSQUodobIWEzxnHUWQBjhAr7hHE7ZCpix5TP p6mhmY1THznVV5jwJiopPC/uvlyXxSGOdNOgt4kfn4XT8bgh4ea/+JuODMi0O1+ur8NU xYYuuFqeHVCUaH0Y4EXW8PLL70d2tkoC4yiwWsxV2x4T9ranZZRjdPMF64/eDZ8xplSz fROL4ij4dX19rYOtBIYqbcfNrLQzL2rYb4ab7+lx9z0UmsPV7cGFwUfV/Qs5Hkgu+s3A pinA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2iTcYzbzSJ/poGjHUY7k6CqRAh0jBj5WRmLC9xQSwLicXrEca1L/JPkaKE2VYyYaVTMY41Pu821Y0v+g==
X-Received: by 10.159.48.193 with SMTP id k1mr8057202uab.49.1490583065248; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.20 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [216.80.61.5]
In-Reply-To: <980ED155-66BC-427D-901F-EAF28DB287D0@fugue.com>
References: <E07AFAEB-2B84-4610-87E7-94CF32CF3761@fugue.com> <7652B138-FEAB-4138-91FB-D71AFE6BEF2C@vigilsec.com> <6DCFBC9D-666A-4A3C-A418-82BB6AE3D25D@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703210928390.28925@bofh.nohats.ca> <m1cqKPa-0000FeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <71F88034-72C5-4AEE-9ACE-3493A1173634@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703211011170.30281@bofh.nohats.ca> <0A544BEC-F719-4A7B-99E4-DC878EBE7B0C@gmail.com> <bfea867e81fc4147be39b424f6e3201f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org> <CALXbJH_Ck38PUPJQ1QktohMkj81J+dBmo9DgfOWvfx9+D6cBOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn317Oiz2xxg8gKxO+BaEOFfJN4mZiw1DRLEtDgsvqvSyw@mail.gmail.com> <980ED155-66BC-427D-901F-EAF28DB287D0@fugue.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:51:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn1T4YF61oUQpm9-34vBNGAkin0kLV_EJdL=E6qEwTL1og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: IETF dnsop Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5YR4OYJfTMB8mcoUwO8yLHmss9E>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] .arpa
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 02:51:09 -0000

I was thinking about the 'because its the (D)arpa" opposition when I
said that. I think *that* stated reason, is mostly now, a phantom.
Maybe I'm wrong on that too. Maybe its a giant political layer9
football which will come back to haunt us, forever. Given how much of
the planet happily goes into the RIR system to register PTR records
for their addresses, I'm struggling to believe this is a choke-issue
of significance.

You argue a case, as a question of human interaction. You see the
domain as one which is going to require human input, human engagement.
You want a TLD because you want people to interact with it, as a name.
This is not sounding to me like an infrastructure, technical driver
for the existence of a label, it sounds like a use case for UI design
goals, which demands the label exist. Thats the same reasoning as
.Onion was, in some ways.  Thats not a fictional driver, its a strong
motivation. So, I think that argument goes to the part not covered by
"most" in my badly worded statement. I can actually "understand" that
as a real driver. For english speakers, anyway.

The rest of your point, the quality of discourse.. I concede. I wrote
badly.  I deserved your rebuke.

-G

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:36 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> 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.
>