IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 16 September 2016 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 2198A127076 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 iCQ3JIY0ivYJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (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 196C912B35B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id l131so70566052lfl.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DBytYtfHmzafgj+KDYmn59mUdQK497DdnzJ7/51GUc0=; b=rGG0DpuGV7hDcKnUZCBWn/+P83NfmyKgLJC/KFunBJgvVm+tFo3E4OL/U/iYXB6JKm qApgOFhyjbIPkoeQDK7j3UvDOqDZXWcOqtxZUSTWFV7kdg8UcYtBmCTDaL4aJm3EdMag TZmkN+FnplU67WhqkPlahqRVylqSSv+XIeag1JTkm98Xb7UFb77uLLcNsO0k74Nl18SD IXNFwf1UXfiWW7diGjcRthI9o1m7Yy6V3glIyTmsoJpNtOyL3Etps2dg8STlP/GmpHKV JNYeZdQtL69zp5iFmcCPSyk05+XLgKTBsIDAElzN48TuXC9kZ/U0JTG3/4st0N2wXLf7 ejEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DBytYtfHmzafgj+KDYmn59mUdQK497DdnzJ7/51GUc0=; b=UbuQpHDf4XbqPI24aEZn/PcR61LpK6KSUnH5S44sl5WBFhpZWbD/jY2J5SqBbSh0Oo MycoT9/w9bIzN4MLt7i+PPL/PpFvJLfPhCmr7h78iJOE1ehtVl7FDnYr74zuFXjYJxQv RqeUH/YFCOaKjzIC6mDmWuupguPeNgHQL0zif553uEVFNLMpTYvVmXIVPdrGoXSH0uq2 huoImqEKiW6wBzD2iLb3TU02bbtjLfHZMd7XZXih85WfYTBulj11ARvlkQDWH5mL4/1W 2THSJATNv3hyWCO3394iu0BZPhra2CwVZAG9P214CTRtRyb7ksFSGG2KDvLhaL0CXj3O S24A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMOARnshohSarY8u31BORnhdjyG/fA/6oyyZA0CfeKLsTS1tGnnlAzzIgegy3T8jSonqyNByq50+9SDXA==
X-Received: by 10.46.0.97 with SMTP id 94mr7015082lja.61.1474063476843; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609161757100.92010@ary.lan>
References: <D60BBDEF-3C13-44CB-A0D9-DEA98F5297F5@gmail.com> <20160916181356.70566.qmail@ary.lan> <CAPt1N1kQRJVEBY=fP_NF6ViOBbNaPpwEbo5dXHkHkpWWECkQ5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLODkPtEmihsbKNPQcYwKCQtvkz9JrjDoU=UXUxKtJrLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLG6MOSR2ugs7HrB=+3W9T9zOLvpxWuZN2fi2LmJ0WEKQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609161757100.92010@ary.lan>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:03:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nVmbww+BtPw5cLT8Daz4MhRJkRw-JVL4dHzW6oPGSw5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142c3c4e9f8bd053ca725cf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XEfvqMn89Z3V6qlugr3wkJQE_5U>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:04:45 -0000

Section 4.1.2 of the tldr document actually says almost exactly what you
said in your four-pronged strategy, but without the pejorative bit.
However, it only talks about this in the case of special-use names, not in
the case of names generally.   I certainly generally agree with the
taxonomy you're proposing, although I could do without the pejorative bit,
and I think it needs to mention RFC 6303-style names, which I think you
left out.   Whether this taxonomy belongs in the document is certainly a
valid question.   The taxonomy that is _in_ the document could fairly
easily be adapted to say what you said, and I would support doing that.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:58 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> ... and I have just posted a new version with the term Domain Names -
>> I (and I think Ted) prefer Internet Names, but our preferences are not
>> important, we want to do whatever the WG wants.
>>
>
> Personally, I'm more concerned with getting the issues identified, and
> then we can decide what to call them.  Anyone else like my four pronged
> strategy?
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email