IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)

David Huberman <david.huberman@icann.org> Thu, 03 May 2018 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <david.huberman@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 89ACC12EB08 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 YTEzN5YmyYQ8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:27:33 -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 05ED912EB07 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:27:33 -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; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:27:31 -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; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:27:31 -0700
From: David Huberman <david.huberman@icann.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
CC: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)
Thread-Index: AQHT4k6AbZ1gXO8t/ECjZikPlv0iNqQeTfkAgACtCgD//86DAA==
Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 22:27:30 +0000
Message-ID: <EFC5B29C-48D2-4F5C-BF2D-26C26E302889@icann.org>
References: <7C873271-A784-4594-91A3-48C697EEC613@vpnc.org> <b3ed96d7-26fb-3d97-118b-39e8f352a38c@time-travellers.org> <87F43055-5B0E-4551-BD8D-241D93F9039F@icann.org> <0AA87D00-17F7-4D10-A72D-E4723C4A0642@icann.org> <B1F34038-595E-48A5-AFB6-20F3214BB8BF@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <B1F34038-595E-48A5-AFB6-20F3214BB8BF@isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha256"; boundary="B_3608216850_1276420749"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/CYdLVeluh1s4ZRTgE2dVMJrFbDU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 03 May 2018 22:27:35 -0000

Mark Andrews stated:

>It’s amazing how fast people can fix lame delegations once email and other 
>services stop flowing. The only reason you think it is un- winnable is that you 
>are unwilling to remove the delegation for failing to maintain a properly 
>working configuration. 

Ideally, yes – of course.

But in practical terms, when any type of registry strips away a lame delegation
attached to a real, operating network with users behind it, and things break
as a result, it has a high potential of affecting the innocent 3rd parties using that
network.  Especially at scale, the legal liability issues implicated by such an action
are frightening, and quickly outweigh the ‘for the common good’ arguments.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email