IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Tue, 26 May 2015 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <rubensk@nic.br>
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 6AF101B31DB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2015 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.238
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 l0h1dudU_o6O for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2015 14:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.nic.br [200.160.4.5]) (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 983001B31A7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2015 14:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E65109DB6; Tue, 26 May 2015 18:22:32 -0300 (BRT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.nic.br
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
Received: from mail.nic.br ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.nic.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sqf77__LoL26; Tue, 26 May 2015 18:22:31 -0300 (BRT)
Received: from rubens.in.registro.br (3.195.net.registro.br [200.160.3.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C97310371D; Tue, 26 May 2015 18:22:31 -0300 (BRT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1432675351; bh=cllJXdBMBKeqHKwNXTjXB3Lql3xTAgtnDP94iFUciG8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=EefTPncftG/Ln3xHREKusAoP0uH5VFpvRGm7fZlB2iJGx1Kb/zSptVxFxEyyzAm85 Rz9P9+oe2F/CASkapulQCANqQEDIjy9mA6TuTSUfMdwEpMzC80FR/3EYtBpl6iYEqG MqH+19wpQGWcAPppJ2RjVtPCmRruhqjm4tvYJ0MM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
In-Reply-To: <20150526211813.15713.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:22:31 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB0978C7-AB12-4580-A7D7-6E87991D7BAA@nic.br>
References: <20150526211813.15713.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br 3C97310371D
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/TDPb-SopAY7M4YRL-xY3IOGYuSk>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps
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, 26 May 2015 21:22:34 -0000

> Em 26/05/2015, à(s) 18:18:000, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> escreveu:
> 
>> I'm curious about one of those TLDs: MAIL. Besides dotless "mail", which seems to hit
>> the root at very high rate (lack of negative caching) and shouldn't be ever allowed to
>> exist, and a few meaningful labels like local.mail*, I can't recall the reasoning for
>> being concerned with <something-here>.mail.  
>> 
>> No matter whether one thinks the responsibility to deal with .MAIL lies with, what are
>> the issues that people see with it ? 
> 
> Queries for dotless mail already provide plenty of issues.  See RFC
> 7085.


RFC 7085 mentions MX queries to other existing TLDs, not MAIL. And I would be equally concerned with MX requests for dotless MAIL than with A/AAAA/SRV requests for dotless MAIL. 

Saying there is a concern with dotless MAIL is an easy sell, my question was on issues with not-dotless MAIL. 


Rubens

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email