Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 14 June 2020 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.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 0DF563A0442 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.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 sJfW-iWuNNYp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A728C3A0440 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49lSsB0kFcz9G; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:53:50 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1592171630; bh=+hank7WdvHepD0Ffv534hlvnnBwgz68ruZq5gkENug4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=stsdUTm3jQDbsxnhX+jhnMISGmB3LxwjHM16W00GW8/FvdQuA3OpHtXwzw0ZGY3KY yWtmrg/sBj9I7qJONe1g8DvUuMYdmDrFzvA4VQnDH54alLss/u+7Qc9WCXwrrzAonX wkXMy5tM4VGMvfz9NoV7P2w5B1tkGV6yEA40IUOk=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FGLCSsGWS6wA; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:53:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:53:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D8C716020D44; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:53:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEACF82C75; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:53:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:53:47 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <1c60efc6-6c7b-232c-b2ba-aba30e355b55@nthpermutation.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.22.394.2006141752290.2525@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+F=JA6fogcy_JGRJaZv=Hq52ozgmY5gmzfPm=1oHcJXKg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200614060206.0b09c560@elandnews.com> <A4882CC1-1610-4456-A28C-CB4F8304C754@icann.org> <1c60efc6-6c7b-232c-b2ba-aba30e355b55@nthpermutation.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BHKZGkln1D2B8Aq8Hosl32vXddk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 14 Jun 2020 21:53:55 -0000

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Michael StJohns wrote:

> That said, I'd prefer it if the document selected a few (<=10) codes from these ranges so that filtering may be built into
> various servers and clients to prevent leakage. 

Then you would expect DNS libraries and recursive servers to treat the
selected ones differently from the non-selected ones? That would only
complicate things further. Now there is an unofficial difference in
these unassigned names, "IETF handled" and "non-IETF handled".

Paul