IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sahib-domain-verification-techniques-02.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 15 June 2021 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 D3B3A3A3A00 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 ZGDRPrA0h9SS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13AD13A3A0C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4G4Hpc01yXzDK0; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:05:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1623783960; bh=aA5HqHsoWTUtrYQuof8txpp+XZ4L8Y+k9NXS7xAfPfU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XVvpofnPdZF1ewMhCtedfG90q9BbHv1VPKzqVDxUV9LHVXPhP82Dre1sNa42ngMA5 vTESCVqAiCZv3AC2YcV1gX9WYKmy6Vvu0Wp+jTsgqOiAxyfHD+aWTaxYi6jSLbnY0t Nun/SeQkCMu9MBngOCeCkgkwpMlT9MKYMyc8vZUM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQBSTEG3JZ7p; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:05:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:05:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 422D28353E; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:05:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0208353D; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:05:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:05:57 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdUBf7gtc-z788NqfNznw4Lx=z2fEL8C4x-HRs=3NGvTvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <45546b62-b723-9e36-87a1-37654cf9da3@nohats.ca>
References: <CAHPuVdUnFHT8hFKeHUjcfKwwvV_j5Ge0iFH+6oQzU=SkOwWLxw@mail.gmail.com> <20210615175108.18F87113A65D@ary.qy> <CAHPuVdUBf7gtc-z788NqfNznw4Lx=z2fEL8C4x-HRs=3NGvTvw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/G-lYeR39yFhqIUmN8DS7osFXQjc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sahib-domain-verification-techniques-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:06:08 -0000

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, Shumon Huque wrote:

>>       No, it's for anyone with a plausible application. It already includes
>>       _validation-contactemail and _validation-contactphone from the CAB.

I would rephrase this as "for anyone who foolishly made a really bad
generic name in the past and is now stuck with it and wants to avoid
anyone else picking the same foolish name".

> In that case, we could use this one.

Please try and recommend stronger naming guidelines so that a registry
is not _needed_

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email