IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 07 April 2016 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B5412D1A3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:31:55 -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 autolearn_force=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 irUgxo8nkbqv for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 7AB6312D54E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.47.60.78] (dhcp-b17d.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.177.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u37HVe0Z031010 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:31:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host dhcp-b17d.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.177.125] claimed to be [10.47.60.78]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:31:39 -0300
Message-ID: <7077A5FB-43CE-4B70-8D96-1D8FEEA59DB8@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160407151722.GB17505@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A44227@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <251C9653-EDB4-41E8-BF08-B921A192B7BC@virtualized.org> <20160407151722.GB17505@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VyzplN0-mz_ttDHqBcYQqTqWbpw>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 07 Apr 2016 17:31:56 -0000

On 7 Apr 2016, at 12:17, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem is full of FUD about how
> ICANN could be pissed off by a decision of the IETF to add .something
> to the Special-Use registry, but did we actually *asked* ICANN about
> it?

This statement seems like FUD to me. Can you point to which paragraphs 
in the document that gives you that feeling? I ask this because, as much 
as I dislike some of the words and organization of the draft, I cannot 
map what you say to anything in the draft (so that I could suggest an 
edit).

--Paul Hoffman

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status