Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

Edward Lewis <> Sat, 31 October 2015 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB161B361B for <>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.43
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TTAfS5EsELYJ for <>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 00:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D5FB1B35FD for <>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 00:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 00:40:28 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 00:40:28 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <>
To: "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01
Thread-Index: AQHREwVkl+Abwf0rI0iIbqxdzTcep56EfqoAgAB5TgCAAEDPZw==
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:40:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_48E8ADF9B76942818FA3DE098DA5CF0Bicannorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Bob Harold <>, dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:40:33 -0000

Bob's point is correct (I certainly agree/that's what I meant to convey) and Kevin is right, something got lost between brain and keyboard.


Sent from aomething with no kybosrd.

On Oct 31, 2015, at 05:49, Darcy Kevin (FCA) <<>> wrote:

I think there's something elided from that sentence, since, irrespective of semantics, "An outcome of that the convention ..." isn't even grammatically-correct English.

                                                                                                - Kevin

From: DNSOP [] On Behalf Of Bob Harold
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:34 AM
To: Edward Lewis
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Edward Lewis <<>> wrote:
A while back I floated a draft across this mail list and got (what I
think) is sufficient (perhaps not the right word) feedback from the WG.  I
updated the document and resubmitted.  FWIW, this is the document link:

I'm not even asking for comment on the list (but you can if you want).
When I rev'd the document, I didn't mention it on this list (until now).

What I'm asking for is - when in Yokohama, if you have an interest in this
I'm willing to discuss.

The issue in the document is both internal to DNS and external to DNS, I'm
looking for broader input (such as applications area topics).

I have to disagree with one section:

Section 3.1 includes:

A DNS domain name "" can be configured and used in the

protocol.  The usefulness of this is limited by the concerns

described later on in Interoperability Considerations.  An outcome of

that the convention of representing the Domain Name "" as

I agree that "" is a domain name.  But it is a totally different domain name than "".

"" is the typical domain name representation of the IP address "", which is a 32 bit number, not a name.  There is no 'root' or trailing dot in an IP address.

Bob Harold

DNSOP mailing list<>