Re: [DNSOP] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-tld

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 30 July 2021 18:29 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 188D73A09AA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 64H82CLCJDkV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 A45113A09A8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GbwsN2mhjz5T0; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 20:29:12 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1627669752; bh=G9DY8MbkuOKXDc4GhWBSdKnlQirUcOgCjucHgynHn0M=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=mRmaAGF4mluGD0m3r0np1yeOjR1+ipnf52rg5bAfiymDiU4XRPHGKxaFZw7BtmVRx YXm+2mtobbJz+ZZ4/h5fNpKbIc2R4MwCfTcKD7mDl8nCd0TaqzjMdV2AiVzBnkHrgt 2G3XekJgvEglSEJQR9uJtdxUK38HSR7sEDdaT3Z4=
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 I6gCJS8k_UjV; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 20:29:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 20:29:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [193.110.157.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47F98D4048; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:29:09 -0400
Message-Id: <38A0730D-D1A8-44F0-A110-71D4398D274A@nohats.ca>
References: <E5E151E6-0BC0-44FE-BF7C-6B2ED207894F@dnss.ec>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E5E151E6-0BC0-44FE-BF7C-6B2ED207894F@dnss.ec>
To: Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18F72)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gboOkgtof8vLjHS44qHZAWhXZNw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 30 Jul 2021 18:29:21 -0000

On Jul 30, 2021, at 14:21, Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec> wrote:
> 
> 
> I now see that with the current status quo, this might a way forward that both sides of the argument might come together on. Essentially, instead of making the pond safe, we’ll have a warning sign that using the pond is at their own risk.
> 
> I hope the WG can come together on this as a way forward. 

Please start a BOF and discuss this outside of dnsop. At dnsop, we don’t have time for any more Special Use domains discussions. 

We are seeing the WG dropping actual protocol work because of these discussions. I now consider these discussions harmful.

Sorry,

Paul