Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Ted Lemon <> Sun, 12 March 2017 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A528128824 for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 05:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 nFxZpEn9qFQh for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 05:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C320D12711D for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 05:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x35so16138489qtc.2 for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 05:21:03 -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=b9MAPcgzgsPijq8UjU1f8dstKuLHZRY+W6XQGSXnfgk=; b=q3JZsXgjbj+atbPyQAllABdzere18lnQRH7A/TdG58iYI8vm4/VxC0Tdwv2Ivbor9e ERxObgQqysk6E8lAqrPv/Q+sF09WWxsxYvWO1pnwBNzpT6G6q8iLbi7qWEOSfjjQfnnV yytExczq+pTBltTTQAcnSL7hyL2EsWp+clNir5TYSu2hn+vSXl6FbYk3ly8RKm36LlGV uU/h6E8KOC5vy5zF/KlIxo/RAGelWBbpT6WCtALBG84DAQzfaTzn52GaJCg4Pu/fzOqt tqGnitxEVMIYO+xnwbTyAj7/HKYtugERt6g2tBNOXd6K8NQShxy1I/X9BcHEq3PfKbf9 DydA==
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=b9MAPcgzgsPijq8UjU1f8dstKuLHZRY+W6XQGSXnfgk=; b=asEIaEsLTLnLRzzWjqjDlW8YA7Dh9JXNE54vJnXAKOFtXH3hsFyi3FdbRt99gkguy0 GrACwG3u2WmY94KhBYCs7F99eOLW6k/btMZy2zCSMTpg6udD4r12BvtBLwskjRUuuKpJ ckJgGVfSDSDfobotsVXeOAYuDh5qTpsCF6XkOWoIc1o+01m5J50k50m5ye5NPZPVvrpR 3lDYOsaqT8Cuuprijg73H6z2ZYaPc5jwZT15Ftlsfkqd/8BOmuX3Iveh/JOSmAs+5z0s djmwBppej1hXU0t626txxUn74BJWxIOE1LXupRsyJhlVnl/af1fs/AC1+0286uuI+cK6 VDSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ln61xb6iCvh05jAdvwIr5b6flT1VsfUz87SJOp0tkX3UEhSOZVPpP0LiZLuOwp2g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d54mr29405356qta.59.1489321262927; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 05:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id o190sm10102007qkc.65.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 12 Mar 2017 05:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5D3710A6-05DC-418B-91E1-64A17F6361BC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:20:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Warren Kumari <>, " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
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: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:21:05 -0000

On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:10 AM, Jari Arkko <> wrote:
> Was name allocation part really 10x more than the rest of
> the protocol development? I was not paying much
> attention to the topic at the time, but I thought there
> also other issues.

Yes, it really was.   I was a participant in that process, so I know what you're referring to, but if you review the timeline in the IETF proceedings (and I did) the numbers are quite stark.   The reason we mentioned this and not .onion is that we're talking about the impression people have outside of the IETF.   The point isn't to criticize the process, but to show how it is perceived.   Do you think we should add text to make that intention more clear?

Thanks for the review!