Re: [DNSOP] Lameness, registries, and enforcement was Re: [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)
Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Fri, 04 May 2018 14:26 UTC
Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 A33E412426E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
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 P-zjfhMCiEj3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (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 23DF8120454 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id f3so14152625uan.9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 May 2018 07:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=BmJTEZ/F/ctqiLKUNrGYbMj1V5yW34Au+RB8p9I4sV4=; b=JNJUJXemCJCq1dsQWb8oSTg6RuWudzjx5UBR+ZQyCD9/oxHLHQTMJHgtYWOk1e+xNB Bc3JyRR28ECjUIw82Lrf48aiNQzulBTOaYKY7JxXtVb+RZrBmm1ct+t0DUbT5bdnqgg4 YXPMNVjB2RiMTglCjiSsCsvNCOGQUHdH6LYOc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=BmJTEZ/F/ctqiLKUNrGYbMj1V5yW34Au+RB8p9I4sV4=; b=kiNdW7sglQGoiVv44zYl8XkLZu14a9ZWQIyoDIt+rX9J8LbwhkOAkwvjQUoFtx2lZw Fc5TL4Lf0ilL3mUUXtyPBBC1LlUo53GAzlxA9/Sw9wnJ3Zsi89gE/8AVVQFxfxsaoPh1 2KysVfSB+isGXJl7QxcYcLo8a4SezEL6EW2pZvLTUwoBMShEz9vznxOxX4BycozGawMv Ui5TnsYKGL53QbUoO57aQbJB/3NRWYqq+0N5/qjEI6ktfTOkCWfjTdJ0/0B8H7RsFKqk vuJbavTdZKExypEetdUICoKbalQvCAco6wIVyk5SQSZy7W4CCNoDVQD/YgAo76i+dRfv r4kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tD3D+kol8JHX1Nia/Zaf22cZhOS/GGmhykDlWGJIqpehNyENLuQ yVWKgfZCavoGAozejlTF8HArLw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqHkLVvyaeudVVXgwPYGDkVsD7g6HNc7+9n+pH6XD1UzV5x3CFh7hhoFnaBqxKLzUvARv504w==
X-Received: by 10.159.52.214 with SMTP id b22mr8510180uac.54.1525443996853; Fri, 04 May 2018 07:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f2c0:101:3:68e4:e763:aaa:29d6? ([2607:f2c0:101:3:68e4:e763:aaa:29d6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y22sm2678604uag.52.2018.05.04.07.26.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 May 2018 07:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Message-Id: <7D86D474-C9D3-4EF7-8CD2-B8FBD2129217@hopcount.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BED9818D-8B06-4BE2-A8A0-67FBF052EC28"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 10:26:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <53696FE1-9E92-4CC8-8A54-5AF5F4251590@icann.org>
Cc: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, David Huberman <david.huberman@icann.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
References: <53696FE1-9E92-4CC8-8A54-5AF5F4251590@icann.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/96YyGGRbuRp4Bs-uP2M7YwslnuA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Lameness, registries, and enforcement was Re: [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 04 May 2018 14:26:40 -0000
Following on from my previous comment in a will surely make no sense in the archives unless you're ordering by date instead of by thread, On 4 May 2018, at 08:37, Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> wrote: > This isn't about terminology but the once-again debate about a registry's responsibility here. > > It's simple to state a policy that says: > > If an registered NS record does not function properly, ... from the perspective of whom? There's issue 6 for you. Joe