IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Alain Durand <alain.durand@icann.org> Thu, 22 September 2016 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <alain.durand@icann.org>
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 64B1E12BF8C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 fGC8gnh0P18x for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CAE12B52E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:02:56 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:02:56 -0700
From: Alain Durand <alain.durand@icann.org>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
Thread-Index: AQHSEGT1Olcpl9kqG0u7zc9rzS2/46CC29WAgAI03wCAAAQMgIAAB4UAgAAJgYD//7US1g==
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:02:55 +0000
Message-ID: <09D54753-BF30-4B9D-9EC6-994C2E0887CB@icann.org>
References: <CAHw9_i+UVH78URWzk+4x=j9BZiKfX3C+UeFU9vz1OfZ3tPeN1Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160920133357.hbvtkrg5uwgzu4wh@nic.fr> <bdc67224-ec80-0732-d338-1d8e0376e7a9@gnu.org> <CAKr6gn0Dezee9JB1g+fBKqDsg4gHjau96S-ZTC4L4xpincsOwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1n-fZyn8u4sOTu6W2sh6XSOQGxGGv31ctgE4W6JLse+Ew@mail.gmail.com>, <CAKr6gn3Ny+5sZvUJAmLuyFPYVJqMtV4auFcwGA1SR5VnmDX4mw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn3Ny+5sZvUJAmLuyFPYVJqMtV4auFcwGA1SR5VnmDX4mw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BNW0RNNE2uJ543lMX8lIavPiUl8>
Cc: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
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: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:02:59 -0000

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 8:31 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, the longer documents goes further in recognizing
> name processes are really inherently tied to ICANN process more than
> technical merit arguments. This pleases me, because I feel drawn to
> the view the problems are best expressed as "this is done by somebody
> else, in another equity process"

This is an interesting observation, as one of the comments we have received many times about the first revisions of draft-adpkja was that the references to ICANN were not helping. We even took heat for mentioning 2860...

I guess this reflects on the multitude of diverging opinions on the subject.

Alain.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email