IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Fri, 13 February 2015 05:38 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 4EFFB1A1B70 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:38:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 7U6NWFJm4_jI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) (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 00AFD1A1B75 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id lf10so16452732pab.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:37:33 -0800 (PST)
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=q7oHVwYdDS4DVg4Wpstq//tr+bussxm+pnkiESCvGX8=; b=BEYZK3gllj/kiasjlERMfFT9j9rSfUiC3/stJpRZ9TubT/kRfRnROFXi/5vmO/mMBS dQwPPWF/qiSnft478qHiVeXOAmOrN4czkbCu7CBAUFXUY+BzRT2cckoZcM+u3Jcpw7pu /HuFD+W1UITFH9kghG7jN8THinOmkT3IkE7/vBeS/Sr3EUZxohM7phyDw1nFZK5ouOPM vQWAs7afBYK5q+OfpkzdstPCHzNDh2GWdRP9/v25e6Q1kCrlgRPYXmbb/zQvuGsVoLcP /fAiIzpN14nyCC4Bn8mKaSt9oFYFVmWqxkg0qhcvp2UzYtltpU2F7VOkFTAUCEEFAUzN Qslw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlq1JqO6T67FoXpOZj5oFu9LYaayWggcq+HLnTheN4nBmY8J+XRomiv+opYLSjjxR4Y33G/
X-Received: by 10.70.44.38 with SMTP id b6mr12371620pdm.33.1423805853537; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.16.175] (27-96-53-26.ipq.jp. [27.96.53.26]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n3sm5353181pdf.95.2015.02.12.21.37.31 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F385B59B-3CD6-414F-9F98-C07612252E70"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn302PSFdqVwH2m=drEZ02_kw+3ioQ4Wz++LnVyK6Z_PDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:38:42 +0800
Message-Id: <6899C83F-BC3E-493D-ABC8-121B1BA72785@virtualized.org>
References: <20150212063638.GD6950@mx1.yitter.info> <CAKr6gn302PSFdqVwH2m=drEZ02_kw+3ioQ4Wz++LnVyK6Z_PDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/U3TrCU0wt2ntwNf9Lugskv2XBWI>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04
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, 13 Feb 2015 05:38:01 -0000

George,

> The politics response is really simple: "this idea is doomed." -I wish I felt otherwise, but I think given the context of the debate over ICANN, who 'owns' names, $180,000 application fees, IAB directions to IANA, NTIA role, this is mired.  I don't want to be a prophet of doom, but this is my honest perspecive.

As with most "really simple" answers, the reality is a bit more complicated.  My impression of this draft is that it creates a space that would avoid some of the risks associated with RFC 6761. Politically, I suspect this is desirable, even to all the parties you mention. As for the fee, ICANN already defers to the IETF in protocol-related matters, so I don't see why a new gTLD fee would be applicable.  With my ICANN hat on, I'll look into this and report what I hear back.

> Would it be DNSSEC signed with a well known key?

Sure, why not?

Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email