Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 04 June 2015 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 49EAC1A90D3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 LWz3lv870dHN for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9EF1A90D8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41932106B1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:07:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rLklG14n4hAM for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:07:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-50-169-68-91.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [50.169.68.91]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 461FB10636 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:07:21 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:07:19 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150604200719.GO94969@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20150604155936.GJ94969@mx2.yitter.info> <20150604195302.45322.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150604195302.45322.qmail@ary.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/V77I6GoRoSQBK6G8p73SrIH0v_A>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:07:25 -0000

On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:53:02PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
> I think the key difference would be that it would accept any number of
> entries for the same string

I thought that Ted's idea was uniqueness.  (Otherwise there wouldn't
be a landrush.)

I agree that if you had a registry that had no unique entry, there'd
be no problem.  But if you have to be prepared for identifier
collisions anyway, what use is the registry?

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com