IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 03 March 2015 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96AE1A90A6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:30:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 WmxOaTmLreRi for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 368E71A90A0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3kx2PL3Khvz7c1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:30:14 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=DOAPhaak; dkim-adsp=pass
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 ZhdU8L-aDos8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:30:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:30:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A3E813B1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:30:12 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1425349812; bh=4Kk1fFclpXNWRbI2dGMRHHHoyqBZTPRqZOFenm6leAQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=DOAPhaaktZkhFK+Pj4LwFg+oXRPv1llgphuD9jZu4gr9/brtFc0ynUNDo1YQYSGJe GeNCCtzCqzSS2OyW/bN20RzjDw6GyljzbTvMRJnJw4Ux/Y9pkCGXhwh08KCAn8iS1p 0nQ1zPfkYTV9JThI88zrT5fFvwTpNadOhyOopjC0=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id t232UCfV019722 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:30:12 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:30:12 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <54F4E124.3010406@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1503022129000.19140@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20150302105857.16985.904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F4E124.3010406@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Lz1mRh8qn0jZljMmQ9-XNeEHJH4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 03 Mar 2015 02:30:22 -0000

On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02.txt

> To those working on the alt-tld draft and other interested parties, this 
> draft was recently revised today.  I am sure there are people on this list 
> who have strong opinions on this matter.

What was the motivation for removing .lan from the list?

I can see where .localdomain and .domain indeed won't cause any
problems, but I think .lan is still a pretty common one in use.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email