Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 06 August 2019 20:31 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 65D5A12008F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 dl0_btZULmMF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:31:46 -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 A44FA120048 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4635rw1HcPzKxY; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 22:31:44 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1565123504; bh=JbMkjaoc+oJvV9b80MIRWGVc5GeLdQmCJpTYriTa6As=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Fa6nN9C4LurAAJ41PUgvRM0Ep+wLBpkcznWsOxYFr8agGGIl/bZTMbxQIG/zOfa8M vnt7gE5ctcEz+LvNA4Qr/ry7EgUJpQsNr9p5BUrx6/j+w+yF98hszwNz6jkXBJdNR1 4T18njKEob0xo27eIUD3/dWm0geGekyl13CouhvM=
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 6rtHQZMdLIOi; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 22:31:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 22:31:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C57A5446D98; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca C57A5446D98
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD615406FE7B; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKpTqn+PEYxHnZoYLi=JtyFwYNFw-0=NKVn0i2Gbhvf9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1908061616580.23212@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAHw9_iKpTqn+PEYxHnZoYLi=JtyFwYNFw-0=NKVn0i2Gbhvf9Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/J_YwIMBkzgmnwHBBQmAR90-e5kk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext
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, 06 Aug 2019 20:31:48 -0000

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Warren Kumari wrote:

> [0]: There is lore that the IESG actually halted reservations under
> the 6761 process, but that doesn't seem to be the case, or, if it is,
> I cannot find a reference; if there is anything saying so, can someone
> please send a link?

If this refers to my comments, which I've given a number of times in
response to this issue, it was DNSOP and not IESG that halted this as
far as I remember.

You can likely find it in some of the dnsop recordings of a year+
ago, but I doubt many have the energy to do listen to a year of dnsop
meetings. If we are resolving this issue now, then it is moot anyway. The
reason I brought this up various times, is because (IMHO) DNSOP made a
rather arbitrary decision to process .onion under the 6761 rules, but
stopped every other name from using the same privilege. There might be
messages in the list archive on this.

I know Suzanne Woolf does not think my view represent how she remembers
the events unfolding. Calling it "lore" though makes me feel like Data's
evil twin :P

Anyway, since we are addressing the problem now, even though it is
unpleasant, is a good thing and the history does not matter that much
to me. I will review the document later and respond in a separate message

Paul