Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 25 September 2016 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 79D2F12B252 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.322
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 fTxuQE9C8JkE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 285CB127058 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3sht483D9qz38M; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 18:35:04 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1474821304; bh=a5ukKn65fNS2xUqjQmOeqM5tV4pv4NjIPJAsKCn3/WI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Q7bmB2y0IEezAYEyF/jDppWOyEHO/Q6vzw8oe0An+97+micW4io6uv9zvZllAE1eV 4mohnkDPS5yGDiKHIyxpU05nSeL6+xQN7RrtE4QeETVVN6LjGjeTyhNUA15a0dOAU7 ih/PA1Wpw08u+FEpIueNrGQemPs69SU3RvpKwH9s=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bir9EGnxeVba; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 18:35:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 18:35:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6673135A2A8; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 6673135A2A8
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C82240D6F5A; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20160925110204.GA12227@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1609251232400.22547@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAHw9_i+UVH78URWzk+4x=j9BZiKfX3C+UeFU9vz1OfZ3tPeN1Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160920133357.hbvtkrg5uwgzu4wh@nic.fr> <CAHw9_iJ-9mMsu30fyEtJd7y7BPDh3BFjiXOK8dE_UynuF65sPg@mail.gmail.com> <20160925110204.GA12227@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Xi4NdqaRjtLp9gPa_fAtOS7c2jA>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
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: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 16:35:08 -0000

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>> We could -- it is entirely possible that this is not a solvable
>> problem -- however, before we can make that determination, and even
>> more importantly, before we can clearly communicate that to the rest
>> of the IETF / IESG / <etc> we need to agree on what the *problem*
>> actually is.
>
> But some people (like me) are not convinced there is a problem. RFC
> 6761 is imperfect (like every RFC) and can be improved, but it works
> (two TLD were registered through it).

Are you referring to the two registrations as successes or failures,
because I don't think you will find agreement even on that part.

Paul