IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Thu, 07 April 2016 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.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 3E26B12D687 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:25:29 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=virtualized-org.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 5EKvXLJbqDzn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 304A312D5E7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v188so65491268wme.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=iHiybVu94nqND6SeP9kyfiTgD6tElYkfKQybOVhmbY0=; b=cIDLVJNS9bVbOXm9+XYn/FBhhj7xqTo2ai1oatNdCRf6MgZPcbaFTOLj0Kpztaj9GV YosQb2KF/KNKcd3kcptI0WRNiRN9rwo1M1GakxR7TfxOp5uyJXHuVGBSEyVef/3dHWfv 74lTap+0szH+Ovy0FiS+4j5dZ3QEbaishBj6v3JhSTriUNLFvxR+vsAhbj6fsoV96V/h 97v0IdSnenhzUz3L+fEQ+UDhZNSOhPhotD1kP3s/Q+XzbN1hqTzxpczJhTeJi628pVzX RovrVXScI7jaVgwVEBmAnGJx/wbetRXzjTWeEa97ljxhXUmasY/Ovp4i3yXq9Diy/Y0+ H+PA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=iHiybVu94nqND6SeP9kyfiTgD6tElYkfKQybOVhmbY0=; b=Z2iMZAaHJPAjo1n+cJJBx2ZyjegPRh2F3A/gobO5QD+ODQeEye2WDUDCqa+6t/9FRU SS3DwWcsNxA61dWLl4BqYoLDusNHPM9m/ixy7OtKXxvOy8V3X7SLzvMotm8EdxB63z3c 0OhMP36WxBqV/4u4lPNu+EH5FoZOyykEI7xyEi8odJsA8g8rHJMhvan9Yale4dnDU6kv ndnMikDc3etP5xBQ752ZGOSFOFhqq3CRtIlvS0bxlPx0rzFQiG3tdS8amIVLpOeCHE0W f6yAWv+ViPZwtZflzUiuso9WHdtxh9X9MrTgyYLcvKUHnI/0BE0BdgsuQ+VG4g+AnjJ2 veGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLVAo/H31V8ss6XDEjimIOSaQ1QY1fIJ+yDXBQll/VOabbPPpmm2qal9Tt/2Q3EJg==
X-Received: by 10.194.22.97 with SMTP id c1mr5099444wjf.19.1460053525680; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:136:9c5c:842d:c246:9b13? ([2001:67c:370:136:9c5c:842d:c246:9b13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a184sm7751010wma.3.2016.04.07.11.25.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9FAF354B-0B46-4451-92B8-C344970BB1FF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <9ECAB54F-3A4D-40E0-B0D3-0FDF5A3F15CF@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:18 -0300
Message-Id: <460E105C-F49C-4716-9AAA-1782AA0E2A3A@virtualized.org>
References: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A44227@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <251C9653-EDB4-41E8-BF08-B921A192B7BC@virtualized.org> <20160407151722.GB17505@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <9ECAB54F-3A4D-40E0-B0D3-0FDF5A3F15CF@gmail.com>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YPamZR7ufSfdsFi5DAoMKKCqXdY>
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 18:25:29 -0000

Suzanne,

On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
>> 
>> Since we have this liaison, does anyone know if it was used to inform
>> ICANN of this discussion (it seems the right thing to do) and to ask
>> them if they wanted to comment?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351/
> 
> (DNSOP co-chairs, AD, and IAB collaborated on this, as the IAB has oversight of liaisons for the IETF.)

Out of curiosity, since that liaison statement was made about 18 months after RFC 6761 was published and about a 10 months after draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names was submitted, was there any previous liaison communication to ICANN prior to that statement related to RFC 6761?

Thanks,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email