Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 27 March 2017 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6BF128768 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 rsUFrK6w7hIH for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5109127342 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e75so7935323itd.1 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:39 -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=rjAbMcpC1KU2v4LSIKrMG6WDESOj2WCGK+ZLAxlHAIs=; b=GBfXBdkBxIYzX+/aa4WDYpogosCRZs48EM6jaclw1v9gjgpRqeyLx8sE6Nnko7gvtB zB4ZlBS9ln9yZEsI4ajWJVClqi7d0aAghzAQEc5wnIQDFHUxy8tvO/Nf57wDWdtywQZv Z4P9oFcJEi9+1KvthRxxQ6tPZAnN4fptda70LKT1uxdRbEl2090PcfIphIK4/EcJph34 KgBgILKQijNdABFq/nK+8vgWYXnxTx/aUY9NGuRnikJYZ3fmvr5OyA5zOIpldAtIZQol OKps0rpaJtWJi56v2IV/PrevvQ7nIa02k/1SIiEChESKVKaCNYC2jFlLQaVke+dLVeHe PWgQ==
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=rjAbMcpC1KU2v4LSIKrMG6WDESOj2WCGK+ZLAxlHAIs=; b=C+KFNIQgtaPOEZ9dASQLpQ964pKLUIgP5gm/s7wB5KJnZoB3c6NNjzIcJtAx4B7Y5H iwH4pDYr8PgzWXBEGzZxjqTjj/DhrupRw8q0bqX77bn0uWI4r2bH3liuEu/taEhV/sS9 kHrXd/6zjH7gpmaqNpevr5RlshDHwhbxQ+zTnPGI8ZcbfgparIoEV+7+SS2Z6IBdJqCy QDfQGeJOChMmGkXiYHqf6c3L5UIntiXZ1SW3lsOUrPOFgX2VJXsN47srdedPzL0Ez1+7 p9BIkfMy3Uu23ku8C31HR+DizQy+zM9Mf/7GopFFqp5WtxZ63frU27GLaWUSyoExQVqO DHaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2tsQ4lmDWS8I5reG8emPJ59eAzGLRtNuo3eLigi+A+IoDiO5+Bboc7bG6PmN644g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e67mr19304821ioi.179.1490587119061; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 141sm5087352ioe.47.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3817F9B5-3FF3-4517-B090-FC7A53EAC316"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:58:33 -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 03:58:43 -0000

On Mar 26, 2017, at 10:47 PM, George Michaelson <> wrote:
> If there is a technical requirement for a label, it has to be
> very very strong to require a new reference in the "." anchored
> namespace.

But the reason you feel this way is that such allocations would preclude gTLD allocations.   gTLD was not anticipated when the MoU was written.   The decision by ICANN to go down that route should not suddenly make it a million times more fraught for the IETF to exercise its use of that part of the MoU.   I assume that ICANN understood the MoU when they went down the gTLD path, so asking the IETF to now self-censor because of this change of circumstance seems unreasonable.

IoW, I do not believe that this is a reasonable test.   The test is not that there be a "strong technical requirement" but that there be a technical use.   Obviously this doesn't give the IETF the right to demand a name that someone else has already laid claim to.   This is why we selected '.homenet.'   AFAIK nobody else wants this name.

The accusation of squatting is silly.   We are going through the correct process.   No squatting is occurring.   '.home' has been used informally by entities other than the participants in the homenet working group, so you can't even accuse us of squatting on that; rather, it was the intention of the proponents of that name to simply make better use of it than the squatters were, in a way that wouldn't impinge on them.