IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.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 0CC951A00F1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 h5Lf3VI_dUvf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (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 DB6F31A00E0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgf3 with SMTP id 3so35189671qgf.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PXt94qaAUN7aLjzRF50YGLRiE2pP5NMXzyNNtD7o86s=; b=ryTyDvq7TXMXlh+1sx4Ff3b7en2fvcZFouvhaEOUcGrDCc7DUKbXTDlZRWyUzMsV0q 4dn9TRQe4keWaw1q3BEJ03Ae0tIKdfhng4Sn1wF6Ueh+ZBo4NTXwFM7qB7zT2/P0NkJS vUe9kFOSU2yC0BXIqjLA07cnt3e66JFQ8yWgXtFUjoh88c3GLSAPAmER865eS9DVXYQ1 a9lqBZnFRlKZxp2albTwuB4cAo8mgsDfzjyVuzA6phxxilom0Or7IWAholnK23g2Hngu ZJGozLkj48XCgLtrQ2k1KDrDRHq2At1blrUzbfTehrfRAGcXKzeoSD0PTOmjjYxogOV0 IDuA==
X-Received: by 10.55.31.97 with SMTP id f94mr95019716qkf.10.1426683260106; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:6:3a80:77e:cc2c:8457:10ee:8e8e? ([2601:6:3a80:77e:cc2c:8457:10ee:8e8e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t51sm11795695qge.28.2015.03.18.05.54.18 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201503181101.t2IB1LBL099870@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:54:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4EEF368E-8E1C-48ED-B6F7-5E978F95B800@gmail.com>
References: <55089F07.5020200@gmail.com> <201503181101.t2IB1LBL099870@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/S_moGINLmGeVw0UBFYuru5IADns>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:54:22 -0000

On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

> Tim Wicinski writes:
> 
>> The WG has several documents that we need to spend time in Dallas moving 
>> towards completion. But we also believe the RFC 6761 drafts should not 
>> be given short shrift.
>> 
>> Accordingly, we are tentatively planning a Virtual Interim Meeting to 
>> dive a little deeper on the special names drafts, including possible 
>> architectural implications of the apparent increase in interest in RFC 
>> 6761, as we attempt to muddle through the questions we’ve seen and the 
>> ones we anticipate.
>> 
> 
> Following this discussion from a distance, I cannot help wondering
> whether this is special names stuff might in violate RFC 2860 section 4.3.

Making sure that any coordination needed is getting done seems to be a valid concern, yes. The IAB called this out in a liaison communication to ICANN last year; you can read it here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351/.


best,
Suzanne

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email