Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-01

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 06 January 2014 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 5635F1AE048 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:43:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 bSXjEnfsW2vK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D721AE041 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-02-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 443458A031 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:43:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:43:15 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140106154315.GD10080@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20131231000412.GV4291@mx1.yitter.info> <52C323CE.3090909@grothoff.org> <20131231234421.GA5732@mx1.yitter.info> <52C48A4A.6090303@in.tum.de> <20140106083932.GA27479@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140106083932.GA27479@nic.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More complete review of draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-01
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: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:43:30 -0000

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:39:32AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> reasonable (it would be better to have "stable" references) but it is
> a "nice to have", it is not mandatory in IETF processes here (RFC
> 6761, section 4 does not require it

I think I disagree.  6761 section 4 says 

   If it is determined that special handling of a name is required in
   order to implement some desired new functionality,

We need some way to make that determination, or else there's no reason
to allocate the labels.  In order to make such a determination, we'd
need either a stable reference or else details in the draft that wants
to allocate the new label.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com