IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 A8B431B2C21 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 LgWlkj3LTIAA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 99CDB1B2C1F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9014CDA007A; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:49:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.1.40] (205.178.35.126) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:49:27 -0700
References: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan> <FF464258-0C33-45CC-A684-BAB7BCE8A8FB@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1505082118060.31363@ary.lan> <0902600F-134B-4688-9CDD-1ACB23431DDE@vpnc.org> <20150512010624.GC74841@mx2.yitter.info> <7F4F844E-4AC6-45EE-9D53-9B2B29A9BEC9@nominum.com> <20150512122432.GC75349@mx2.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <20150512122432.GC75349@mx2.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <13D05AAA-FB74-411A-AA63-D9F65CC6FF9A@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:49:26 -0400
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Originating-IP: [205.178.35.126]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PNTOgbEr8n2K3iLUFVbzS-IGSOE>
Cc: "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material
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, 12 May 2015 12:49:28 -0000

On May 12, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> That'd be another answer; but given that the _result_ of the
> registration in both cases would be the same, I'm inclined to say that
> the registry we use ought to be the same one.  I don't feel strongly
> about it, but fewer registries is probably better in this case.

Sure.  In my mind it depends on how many of the sort of entries you're talking about get added.  If it's a small number, a single registry would work better. If it's enough to swamp the protocol uses, then I think it would be a problem.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email