Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 19 September 2016 00:33 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 4C37412B171 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:33:40 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 d1HOluanKbrB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (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 6FF1312B16F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id h127so99518509lfh.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UkGIPR94W3v7nsRBhh9hNdmu3RR1w4GNEJAPZYV/iBA=; b=sOKhMiQu0LzoD95FKgRvzd136Cyosdky0JZeLco0D74dyh7HTCW9nLVrGN0zCvIhY3 5Le3s7QCbLtVVI+wZkpjqz94GvMnhJFHzWCMR76tiQl70JGXHNNOF0wcbUZ6LZto9ZXQ KaBGzhrepaBGVNk4jtdX7R+GRtJP5ptYq70xl43/669PJtfGIFqdy8qa4WL6CeXWk9Rt t+YuyRq7I/rde0LKvwcA+fl46oopvc3tUHIiieTAOie+IG7cAgDOmusjRtB//n8swlD1 o/Vf7ll2NWNxW5JMNdIW5QLJMtja5fwdkf7xa7Jag8mjwM/rKmIZcjKShB5NECQbB4Cd jgvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UkGIPR94W3v7nsRBhh9hNdmu3RR1w4GNEJAPZYV/iBA=; b=bQNasZsIFD+pJynyh+xtFQFqI1TZHProm6qIruuvQlF/+w6SwY9eGcPJvVG+aRqCae 1+fH/9rA5JCLsimWmC5oGfXTx7uCfYy4ncwttIj4Kchjt9M7DNlo7hx0qLrT4h3mNpEY +WMGvGYs3Jij8RWTySImkFVE7IKeWVs7bfStX1BYo7QLX86TkdQ5v88/G8B4vc3qv7XZ 459Cl9bjNaWBXmW2jlfFQEcrW8Rhm2X48xZAZZmn1AwkXjqaQReqkZuoc0PMfdhpa5Ov sA4WQsDiRdu3spJxsFzjyy0CJAjjqbOvwzrx9Qg4lEhwiXrwlJK6m+tocBtT/7J2j26Q bLmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOpMb/xg+U0bL4ZRh29/SrHy9Q2W7g+G15ghHLS9sEVWWYwZ89f4v8/aAEI0i3ODlsxtG1ouJWuQIV+Tw==
X-Received: by 10.25.24.163 with SMTP id 35mr6539544lfy.176.1474245216225; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160918234346.78983.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <CAPt1N1=xNaHpO-ZxusWK9_UBzOpKa0zk0y0h7iGvRS2P=Og-3g@mail.gmail.com> <20160918234346.78983.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:32:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nOMUA0ZNQioZ7wngDE6gSjJn_qroBv2a2kdsvFMKngHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114115746ce368053cd1765f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7uHnr3Iqh1Ao6Aixf0iNEAP6y4s>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 19 Sep 2016 00:33:40 -0000

Dealing with toxic waste names is out of scope for the problem statement.
The problem of toxic waste names is mentioned in the tldr problem statement
as a problem, which could potentially be dealt with if the working group
decides it's in scope.   That's why the document is written the way it is.
  Remember, the point of this document is not to supersede RFC 6761: it's
to describe the problem that we have been moved to solve as a result of the
challenges we have faced and the things we have learned while trying to
follow the process described in RFC 6761.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 7:43 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> >To John's point, short isn't actually good, because it's important to
> >document the context--
>
> No, really, short is essential.  I'm happy to add the context once we
> have a concise statement of what the problem is.
>
> > But we tried to keep the actual
> >problem statement short and pithy; if you really think it's too long,
> >perhaps you could suggest shorter wordings that still capture the actual
> >problems.
>
> Ah.  See previous message for some examples.  In neither of the
> documents can I tell whether dealing with the toxic waste names is
> supposed to be in or out of scope.
>
> R's,
> John
>