IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Fri, 08 May 2015 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 3724F1B2ECE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 12:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 jtkfRKM1mlf9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 12:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6DE1B2ECF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2015 12:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdea3 with SMTP id a3so97143414pde.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=LQgj0e373iFAsbLmBKbmQRfIzS32rYz8r8n7egLHJog=; b=L9TxENvrNcWULW//GaW28iOhH213StehXP/ZnL2ugaHtc1g47If04cXZpB/KwmJ5Nd BHpZfqEAUrzhp3WoWQhMHJ4R1WrW3XLP3EPKkbJd8Hp846yJ2+isrb8XEpita6C2c6Cp +XkQ4jMkYVn9SBUOnw+HpRK0MftGYhxYlJ10Yw+WsqCGWIJ3aRXJIvo1AuSYtU/1uMCn Yv10YtJdikblvXv3i9HwrsBX9M8rYqZpvxfuUTVD+cKB9fhepDvOksRmndB9QR9Tymr4 Q+3io9DoNSnwvcW+NjfeMPpPnvYJ4OndIYsV54Vg32hUXugOUDnP4+6A7SbC3akBI32y M8Zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlkYi7gjlwGcyMq2lpcPN4+rEMPgI5EDWK4Y/P4LsgnP7pzJRkIjCCG9ztCbTrzNM8bUwE5
X-Received: by 10.70.44.76 with SMTP id c12mr1024307pdm.49.1431113907397; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.5] (c-50-184-24-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.184.24.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fk10sm2440037pab.18.2015.05.08.12.38.26 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 May 2015 12:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_18F856A3-62A1-471B-9681-31EC06D30DC9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 12:38:25 -0700
Message-Id: <E130EA74-F2B2-4741-B300-F15A305ACE2D@virtualized.org>
References: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Rvex_BaInKbMYUJbE_H9RhXDTQA>
Cc: 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: Fri, 08 May 2015 19:38:29 -0000

>> What objective criteria makes those TLDs special?
> Data reportedly shows extensive off-the-books use in private networks.

What data?

> It's an obvious stability issue.

Agreed.

> I'd probably put "lan" into the same group, no doubt to the dismay of
> the South American airline group.


That's sort of what I'm getting at: I might agree (or might not, haven't looked at root query stats recently), but if the IETF is going to declare some TLDs as unusable for stability or other reasons, I believe we need some sort of objective criteria.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email