Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 21:15 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 EE3AB12B46F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:15:38 -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 cuGqZ1qpQomI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com (mail-lf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22d]) (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 3B5E212B33E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id b71so35649106lfg.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:15:32 -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; bh=cVt8EOywtrBfvCFG6WUbHR/+Ktvoh2rK8mcprKp5G5Y=; b=niAXgevyCDtbqbsOXVDkk7m2lrtfi3eFqTIRYDQsTOH+9rljOhA3WE0D9vgguCAHeU ANqElY5i5SyAiF0IPmHuA83SIOM9Oya6uBwiCZdKGfvGp4P52/yR7CtkroxfR92UttSL 30Gn5ndwMk6YxyaZ39Qh+GSJ6SGWmuh6ClsZgEsFmYsX3iV67JGfSbpnHTEc3Y0bcGCE HeVT7rM7QdbF7r05JjPyXoF2DsCDQHftcg1ajxbPRj4vIvUlEYlDvn4efu4jp91tSVoo riDfpzuKg1AQG8PU1mLx/AUTRhAGvHPbdlAL8ERz3CEp/y+6kAfd8qucC4TSrzDpcjRX PaDg==
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; bh=cVt8EOywtrBfvCFG6WUbHR/+Ktvoh2rK8mcprKp5G5Y=; b=IOWD23sPMhyZWs5pdcAu8slCquTPUg4LAViqn248shCg7v6mWevtGzwWIuTyYrbrkj 8Ch/5wI35J1Q0QITzlo9JUOb3qPxSw56p3cCRkzTcmjwuowKKGdaLk/CHWkjG23hVd79 VdMaF9yeoNth0zpONOA/hvAuNW9ScPysX5NxjiDPrryaYKS7MA6JXIfVPvjXfBalQD2U AZqyA+2B//pQBl2M1/cs09QnOgpUePKu3OB8v1VCj5eT5QNeNQuazPa7GYZGWBum5xjJ QE9wnZSTLzCbPLAzVRHPJhi3gjbb4+YKb1hXVsydowvJcAu7e9QXpXNV5F3WQcK+M1vR esrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMDC4RX+meZPjudXA3pX6jWpAUVw55r2+Le+EjTZF7MfX71fczy5XBbS3IcFE1aHmTsU+4QfdwQEMWS2w==
X-Received: by 10.25.24.163 with SMTP id 35mr11356971lfy.176.1475010929906; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8F7C438C-37EA-4C99-96D9-F4B59AFF40B7@rfc1035.com>
References: <147368142586.14471.16897934069436083953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6ce7ea83-5ccc-aeda-d1e4-f5e5d1ccbf53@gnu.org> <CAHw9_iKtmVh8xvwVydWUs-g9t_JiKAF7Frdx_iieSEOvQFHJ1w@mail.gmail.com> <f33a6d06-2c17-04fd-d6a7-b73274705c37@gnu.org> <74610049-16f1-3210-7f79-8d38d596d641@bellis.me.uk> <05DF06B8-AB92-4DD9-B868-1D420FA33692@rfc1035.com> <CAHw9_iLGhDXsfPGNb0igLAdMHBbR+giFw067oEReD7Ww84Je-Q@mail.gmail.com> <8F7C438C-37EA-4C99-96D9-F4B59AFF40B7@rfc1035.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:14:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=SkX0aYbzHTEu4_iBrM9QLSzopr8u=pmjwYmwhYG4vYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141157484666a053d83be5e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9CW4tZW28riCn2Mu-hEY4TJXQok>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt
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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:15:39 -0000

Jim, I asked you this privately, but your mail server bounced my mail for
no obvious reason with:

550 5.7.1 <mail-lf0-f41.google.com[209.85.215.41]>: Client host rejected:
No thanks.

So, what do you think "the root cause" is?

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
> > On 27 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless
> detail and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement.
> >
> > .... we have two of them --
>
> Indeed Warren. That’s one too many.
>
> They both come up short as problem statements IMO. I’m struggling to find
> words to succinctly describe what problem the WG is expected to solve -
> sorry about that -- since it appears to be a layer 9+ matter. Both drafts
> seem to be concerned with treating (some of?) the symptoms rather than the
> root cause(s). Excuse the pun.
>
> > ALT doesn't solve any of the major issues, but it *does* create a safe
> > place for those people who want to experiment and build alternate
> > resolution systems -- and takes some of the pressure off while we
> > discuss solutions....
>
> True. But that seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Where’s the
> demand from experimenters and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their
> alterate resolution systems? That’s a rhetorical question BTW. Answering it
> may well distract the WG from its quest for that one true problem statement
> to rule them all. So please don’t do that. :-)
>
> FWIW I’m sceptical about creating .alt as a playpen for experiments since
> it might undermine efforts to answer the question ICANN asked us, whatever
> that question might be, or be the start of a slippery slope. Maybe a TLD is
> needed for experiments. Maybe not. However that’s something to discuss once
> we’ve figured out what has to be done about special* TLDs in general. *For
> some as-yet-unclear definition of special.
>
> I think the WG should step back from both drafts, take a deep breath and
> agree a problem statement. Once that’s done, we’ll be in a better place to
> decide what to do with both drafts.
>
> Easier said than done I know...
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>