IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 14 February 2014 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDB91A0016 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 qlHxNXI5VUaf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716171A0058 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id cc10so9459492wib.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:27 -0800 (PST)
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1Sk1A0mvdEPrwJitcZZTTiwemNxBialBhSnyZ1uUMO4=; b=LBnqa/sl2M+dtw4YREDwcwcxQsEehwG3jia/bTI2vencAruen1Y3HrxUHR1bHQrCS9 0QMiKErwoI1mDSiKFyImawI/++NbZOgWnMMIyRLHsmFdCFTOrDswMHnc7jnsggTDapnG Sfe+lgQDHS060rNkI8XPd3ElAXnqIyuO1KlBIkEjN7eOQsZI/wW4Ylmn0uSXzmzAj1yj wfv+5s79cz54ddgW8nX7T3LLBIIAwT+eUybIGbwEq//0GbWp8p3+O5WfHUC2hhy5HfUf 1AJmYM/ZlrjgCqZ/KPGR3Eb8/9M8q7NFpntqyJTZNrSooDn5p1BbeTFfaXAqtW+sRNlw f30w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYwoOXZX4ZI9usws+pCgGqTNkkylEThG8JtZDQiPdKodeezIVR5w8C0t8CypL/9GQMJNhj
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.77.74 with SMTP id q10mr32972wiw.39.1392341607610; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.54.167 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [50.201.180.2]
In-Reply-To: <982167BD-10FC-4D06-9E85-47F371BBCA90@nominum.com>
References: <20140210205838.15973.63281.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E63B37B9-EFA0-43A5-9AC5-81CEC23C342C@viagenie.ca> <00BDA580-984F-41D1-8659-04278737A526@hopcount.ca> <982167BD-10FC-4D06-9E85-47F371BBCA90@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:33:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJ8YOTJ+3ZVV7J9RpA+OPHwjjpyUS45CJeSZSoEvyr-mQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BEiEtyjnhvtMqoMz2pVaV4v-ew0
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 14 Feb 2014 01:33:31 -0000

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>> I suspect that there would be fewer roadblocks involved in choosing an anchor ALT.ARPA than ALT, since ARPA is under the control of an IETF family member while the root is controlled by distant cousins. If I'm right that this proposal is for future, as-yet-unknown applications, then the choice of anchor should be arbitrary; it feels in that case like the path of least resistance is the right one.
>
> It really shouldn't be difficult to make this work, although if .ALT is already spoken for a different name might be needed.

Nope, checked, no-one has applied for .ALT....

> If it is in fact difficult, then RFC 6761 is pretty pointless.
>
> I agree with your other point, though--this may be useful for future efforts, but doesn't address the same problem as the other two documents we've talked about.

Yup. This is to primarily to prevent this sort of issue in the future...

W

>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email