Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Mon, 29 November 2010 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5743A6C32 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:10:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rI85rJUdbp3y for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [204.152.189.190]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381B93A6C35 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:10:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC87F70F07; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:11:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at virtualized.org
Received: from virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (trantor.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J5jdn1JBsADz; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:11:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.8] (c-24-130-212-17.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.212.17]) by virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41362F70EF1; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CF3F3EA.70208@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:11:05 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F6124B52-80C2-4A9C-8D79-352B7F0898F0@virtualized.org>
References: <20101124142303.GB19441@shinkuro.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1011251734170.4075@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20101125175247.GH21047@shinkuro.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1011261558520.4075@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <D8E75C03-0322-4594-BB27-D825AB429EA6@hopcount.ca> <C4FB358F-53D1-4A2B-A3A4-1C07222C0B51@dotat.at> <1E1C9726-46B6-4891-A1A4-9D71A90EFE47@hopcount.ca> <20101127185010.GB56062@farside.isc.org> <79DC22E8-18BC-44B1-8874-D094844D9E94@dotat.at> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB43E00387CC@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> <20101129143919.GE33199@shinkuro.com> <4CF3C0BA.1050307@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1011291605210.4075@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4CF3DDD1.90201@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1011291742380.4075@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4CF3F3EA.70208@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:10:02 -0000

On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> as there are two roots right now,

Huh?

> and my preference is for no i-d at all at this point. i don't want to be in cartagena next week or san francisco next spring or ... and hear someone say "the ietf made us do it" for some unfortunate value of "it".

Err, no. The IETF already did it. What is already happening is that people accuse ICANN of violating the DNS specifications and/or are refusing to update their hostname parsing software. Having personally been in discussion in which 1123's statement 

           "However, a valid host name can never
           have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the
           highest-level component label will be alphabetic."

was taken to mean that the highest-level component label was required to be alphabetic despite the existence of IDNs in the root would suggest to me that a clarifying RFC that says you can have numbers and hyphens in TLDs would be helpful.  I believe the current draft is sufficiently sensitive to the policy vs. protocol distinction to make its publication warranted.

I would be willing to participate in drafting a follow-on RFC that expands on this draft, but I believe it would be useful to stop the bleeding first.

Regards,
-drc