IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 20 March 2017 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 624B51314CE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 J_LKHKCmGdd8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7EDF128796 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v127so115390969qkb.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=/9PiIB8soef7AXu2yOEWLeeefW0mSieg/cJFeoYo0yE=; b=1KjLIOBq3M/iPpayoUV+BZz1OXFWt0TGEEgl2Dry14+gtVYWVfrrlK2p28IzBKaxN/ M4WPSt7r72aCsUXt55FPikVpcdIp74gTiy/mIeMxEyeQqjtjMWgmFduTh65i1q+2sOMM NLheBK1akGq4zy8qJrHSF6KAHcSUZlie3WdMFscNOS4u2pG0Z7Q2BAS71Mz8f3WVUg4q Qq0JLrusxwgqw9QPm8GokrIgENOLyMftua7NX9BkcI80I3XhEW3pfvijDsCCvvvpTwid It/piUN7fReI7CExQe8r7BkIVJcCMzxOgW+2KbnBZu11l84h/7VEJuJsKN0EjnKOi0Yw /hmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=/9PiIB8soef7AXu2yOEWLeeefW0mSieg/cJFeoYo0yE=; b=ogIRBmZ8BHZWJTfHdZ8HMKVIbwgu0j5B8hvwTw/lkxf50rhT+8VDJEPG/f/18BpmYS tlT569zd1YMN+jdtP3XKwE5/CJLPamE+iAPyh/maRMrVTXWduUgB0UGRq1ERRGBnWF/n y9JnzE0ikZK4vyDtKuPZjL7ct+qxkRED8tSgH5ZkpXftqSpB51r8oUwTFXH9UHQy0ThT 4xY6fktA6uJOIxodA1EbsoNoXmNpH48fdI4sJMMFpfJFuC8GAzCQggUEh24CUjmIjwIv O5swQhiSUiAhhcKUlr+HGXl5tMa0dt9E6gPDNzd/+0oiM3k+PtvULMnYeSJ6BTc77gNG 7mGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0mManrURUtCdPBtJx6WXVES85w+NxGiXq93ZeL55fC8cHxZkTIBNuY4BAMSJlC5g==
X-Received: by 10.55.134.2 with SMTP id i2mr9392698qkd.43.1490029199856; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q31sm12760580qta.22.2017.03.20.09.59.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <60C85486-E351-4C42-ADEB-FCBB56F4EA27@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4CD0E42-749C-4372-9B5A-1C983C4C7E5A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:59:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <21C8F856-FE3F-42A6-A8ED-888D0797B68B@vigilsec.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <1E14B142-680B-4E30-809B-68E03EB6E326@gmail.com> <61FD3EE3-3043-4AB1-9823-6A9D61B1438C@vigilsec.com> <BE2A3845-D8AA-433A-9F00-1056ECFD335F@fugue.com> <21C8F856-FE3F-42A6-A8ED-888D0797B68B@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EC-w_qraZOgPEK99nz4nUTioO8Q>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
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: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:00:02 -0000

On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD registry.  Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this difference.

I understand that we have different views.   However, I am asking you specifically to articulate _your_ view.

You have said that in your opinion special-use names must not be published in the root zone, but that was already obvious from what you said previously.   What I am asking you to do is explain _why_ special-use names must not be published in the root zone.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email