Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Suzanne Woolf <> Tue, 20 September 2016 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A815712B22D for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 01:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WZ2-9trW304 for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 01:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF2CE12B687 for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 11so4395230qtc.0 for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Os9Ek3cMCWv4jbSMazp5WFA4sel0yuXm93UHMzdCYQ4=; b=QLh5b0dWCsb1kHd8P6dG2tU7+9ySvwuP/l8tNARKAcp3dHPu1c3dXrkWY3gW8JnkRu wTJlv0Wj65K+I50QAQDVoIJn/DMJUjORpenFfp9eKMlsWdZmVvfw1riuc2DIZl1LxjDv P3yw6iU/Eisjq1UR6xvlzYV0FDPr7PwPmy6IBB+h7ZRV7EIy6ph6xQneRDUnCpKvGj1r UBY+KOqQIQg1D+hH2p3Fw6DoyaS4mH+WpIasxldW2OfCq67Mx5yugSASygjsbgEnhRxq MPYitASKQMdaXmLGml0MCrZ+/5/B37gT0lU3fmZjBVh+Px2+mjO1WRrU3jNnN9QIworM K0ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Os9Ek3cMCWv4jbSMazp5WFA4sel0yuXm93UHMzdCYQ4=; b=AJkvx+wmmhmStM/Xmwoz00zkNQDIXuqq3K7ZUGeV3IezeCFEdtcpWbpRLcLWw5hsV8 6g+bZOkRvwfeesdGM1MyrQ2rlXtm3Zzm2qxxxYQkQYntz6zqwHkySyW6KJWo/WvzhjEL y9aJZ4/rhK67qMwAHZTx2In/SaGIy68R1m9aXS52NCVsxLC8569tw8+VZudZcnPDaRMy gsYXR5ZreEyRrESKDKrezfCSgXfcN2FnhnjU1gaMWItVOJ+OUCr2WvObqF2FbRd9n5YG lFNbodn7TOw7EhXWhqKefRyHPujMIt555q4oZhHRJiPGTVHg5rZBDSDyk4oXCPdoQjXZ WnIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOpQq17DMJwzEUZ28zXMozvXdAwrdBIVbzJQ5vA5tVVi3gJROlmo2UyD1UsaLK5LA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b40mr34934542qtb.38.1474361870979; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 01:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c003:1360:5dba:f55a:7dc7:c68? ([2601:181:c003:1360:5dba:f55a:7dc7:c68]) by with ESMTPSA id 35sm15479953qtn.35.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 01:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 04:57:49 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:57:55 -0000


Thanks for your efforts on this; I see authors have replied to specific comments.

I just want to clarify what amounts to a process point:

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 4:21 PM, avri doria <> wrote:
> On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask
>> the WG to choose.
> I do not understand this point.  Having now read both IDs, I see
> relevant points for the ongoing discussion in both of them.   I see them
> as complementary where both contribute to defining the problem in a
> comprehensive way.

As a personal opinion, I agree with you.

> I think it would make sense to ask the authors to combine their efforts,
> that being a first step in finding consensus on how to proceed -
> otherwise the back and forth continues once a winner is picked.  Perhaps
> enlist the help of one of the neutral knowledgeable people in the group
> to bring the two groups of authors together in a base draft that
> discusses the issues in language both groups can live with with a strict
> focus on problems and their explanation.  I may be misreading the 2 IDs,
> but I do not think there should be that many sticking points once there
> is a decision to work it out.

The authors are always free to do that.

In the meantime, however, in the interests of getting some kind of movement, the chairs are reminded that:
	1. We do need some basis for moving forward, and the roadmap we set out last year(!) does call for adoption of a problem statement as a next step. 
	2. Once we have a WG document adopted, it becomes easier, from a process perspective, for any participant in the WG to ask for the edits they want, since we’re supposed to be progressing towards a consensus document. In a real sense the question at hand is a very practical one: “Which of these documents do you think needs less work?"

Again, thanks!