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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sun, 12 March 2017 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE01128874 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 04:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yf3wp6MMJ335 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 04:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7510312706D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 04:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4ED2CFD8; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:10:39 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8P_esBwuV17F; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:10:39 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [] (p130.piuha.net []) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B73A2CCC1; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:10:39 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FF0EC84B-BF16-4CF9-8F24-BB977F256C0F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:10:38 +0100
Message-Id: <4D5675CA-7DA1-4F76-9EAC-25C473EAFEDA@piuha.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7y24e_IYuyazaqHWkPvdivh1nyQ>
Cc: Warren Kumari <wkumari@google.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
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: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:10:43 -0000

For what it is worth, reviewed these documents today
as an interested individual, and both seem to be OK
from my (very limited DNS expertise) perspective.

Thanks for your work on this important space.

I did have a few mostly editorial comments though.

In sutld-ps, Section 3:

      There are several different types of names in the root of the
      Domain Namespace:

It would be beneficial to phrase this as a problem, as in what
issues the fact that there are different types causes.

Also in the same section:

     The RFC 6761 process took more than ten years from
     beginning to end

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. Also in fairness, mentioning the
.onion process might be a more representative
sample. (But I’m not disputing the point of this
problem, it is real. Just wondering if we can be more
accurate about the description.)

Finally, on -alt: For the record, and realising the
extensive discussion that the WG has had on
these topics, but I was a bit surprised by the
choices in -alt to not have a registry and to
use “alt” (which I associate with some Usenet
groups, showing my age). I’m quite fine with the
WG’s recommendations, however.