Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Warren Kumari <> Fri, 16 September 2016 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F7E12B253 for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:19:27 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 iHkUahub69pn for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 683C012B10A for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z190so97682004qkc.3 for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qqGqW/uETYt6F/AMmdrPjIWJPXl23iWKuAOj96dlT24=; b=DfjF+O8J1KcJ1AIOOOvIb17bLQAedgWWSWSbb4/OlsEIE5pzMJjvrPaCA3gH1l1Zf0 Ujb0UsD3ps2HDG15w6pnbELtFv8RP4S+YkrL3R1vLIiLhFMbxwZdiuxdzxEPJY1IcYaO qvO+i+Pw7jFUUdUzAiZfiB9EJ76dUltQAF4RIl756sLiLM9zXrfOAlRg7oni/ZQ0D+LL dC2EI89KJocQeeHMX9kUdtxIcTHBv154sNMu4z/C/wjmQcrazsiGxdDhdoOPxwDbuvdY rqY1P1/lnCwExaJ6AVODBYlgyeCAkEhFLkDvWeTqQQIpv2bouZyA9Q4RAxpKHdYq9YWj 70JQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qqGqW/uETYt6F/AMmdrPjIWJPXl23iWKuAOj96dlT24=; b=hx1RyR/UDR24FrkueLLioKZ7N/i2iRfiBnp7E0v2IuZJQHWUv+tZVr7mWyOzHUAPQv CO4UDWb7nYgvL66qu0GNwOESua1ewjnFTDZBF4DfaC4DoCKwrv9t3fg0Z2LgVVZ8knfu PYj+vrt/Wm3gUyCNGBcrzvHb9Qrp2Ky2/YqSaDTlmeaCWhSUraqut725SQsIBvo591H0 yyjTUPeqAZaBHxMWWQgZCnIuZPWrruWTOEf/jJlCoSLSMj42Yjc+LGF/1tf13iD18r8V P/atVjjvAIdjPuayf8QtsOVpQ7D+9FBYYjv0lO6DW+I6a6hXcyY2c7HRnSbO1hWth5XQ tUUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOKJK8MG6Z/3PfqW3M+cJgh5CmVHV3pouYmVaqppuDnnUQd6/Ir8/wU5iDXVX4x2W9MrEriyPXVqXmAEMZp
X-Received: by with SMTP id c192mr17304204qkg.29.1474053564526; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20160916181356.70566.qmail@ary.lan> <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:18:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>, John Levine <>, Suzanne Woolf <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:19:27 -0000

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine <> wrote:
>> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
>> adpkja.  The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, since
>> there are a lot of other names on the Internet such as URIs and handle
>> system names, and this is about domain names.
> BTW, if this is your only reason for preferring one document to the other,
> it's pretty thin.   Maybe "Internet Names" is the wrong term to use.   It's
> one that we came up with pretty much on the spur of the moment

Actually, IIRC it originally came from a suggestion made in the ARCING
BoF, where it enjoyed quite strong support.
But, we are (of course) happy to change it to whatever the WG wants.
When reading these documents and choosing your preferred one, please
keep in mind that whatever you select is a *starting point* -- the
authors of whichever document will incorporate whatever changes the WG
asks for.

>  in Buenos
> Aires, because we didn't want to use "Domain Names," because "Domain Names"
> is too easily confused with "Domain Name System Protocol."   Personally, I
> like Domain Names, but I agree that the term begs for confusion.
> Point being, whichever document you like, we ought to figure out what term
> to use.   If it's "Domain Name," I'm fine with that.  I  used "Internet
> Name" because that seemed to be the consensus in the room, not because I'm
> wedded to it.

Yup, we will do whatever the WG asks of us.

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.