IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Looking for IANA registry for --xn

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 07 October 2016 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 0059E1294FB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 hs2kwc9rg7xE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 435E11294E0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.113] (50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u971uA3Z003364 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:56:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230] claimed to be [10.32.60.113]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 18:56:10 -0700
Message-ID: <BD76880A-3B63-4ADA-9C83-30D251490D0E@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwhN+eF4-mSidaT71OWnWgy-9xghQO0446eOJbQ3v_Ds_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjcC6pJ+-LzwGyoG=VVzT_QQ9UrvM3LcZM1121XqCccow@mail.gmail.com> <1329930975.314237.1475774676486@mail.yahoo.com> <CAMm+LwhnGFR6hqD2PbXyq4OiyLnfAy1K9TbaesmX3A7XVyCiiw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGg9zGNzUkGz2_NgrxJnia7Wax6i_f3B-VNZw+1=KAEnA@mail.gmail.com> <F0F6F02A-F237-4D41-98D5-807B323DD3A3@rfc1035.com> <CAF4+nEERTNc0MuycRZLipahsoAWR7riMQB1BfD8qeu54KF0+0A@mail.gmail.com> <20161006202257.qt4jfiwhbe24esze@mycre.ws> <201610062113.u96LDGP8031570@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <CAMm+LwhN+eF4-mSidaT71OWnWgy-9xghQO0446eOJbQ3v_Ds_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/K4wT6Y5-yeku_bMthwglnWYg8QQ>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Looking for IANA registry for --xn
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 01:56:19 -0000

On 6 Oct 2016, at 18:09, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> 
> wrote:
>> RFC 3490 does say something about the ACE prefix.
>>
>> ​It says it has been registered but not where and there is no IANA
> registry that references RFC3490​

It does not say it was "registered", it says that it was "assigned":

    11. IANA Considerations

       IANA has assigned the ACE prefix in consultation with the IESG.

This is not a pedantic difference: IANA keeps registries for things it 
has registered. This prefix was assigned by IANA as a neutral body that 
helped determine a prefix that was unlikely to have been used in public 
domain labels; you can read the mailing list for why that came about 
that way. There was no registry for prefixes because it was a one-off 
for this RFC only. That can change in the future, of course.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email