Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C5F1A1B53 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:24:36 -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
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 e9m7UE1hgOHL for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660F91A1BEF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C464106CB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:24:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ixf-DAq9u7pi for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:24:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-50-169-68-91.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [50.169.68.91]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 552101060F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:24:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:24:32 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150512122432.GC75349@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan> <FF464258-0C33-45CC-A684-BAB7BCE8A8FB@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1505082118060.31363@ary.lan> <0902600F-134B-4688-9CDD-1ACB23431DDE@vpnc.org> <20150512010624.GC74841@mx2.yitter.info> <7F4F844E-4AC6-45EE-9D53-9B2B29A9BEC9@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7F4F844E-4AC6-45EE-9D53-9B2B29A9BEC9@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gpLrIh9OFXP-kp97C172VpY0qY4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:24:36 -0000

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:08:55AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> I see your point here, but is that really the right thing to do?   It seems to me that the distinction you have drawn is a good distinction, but argues for a separate registry for "please don't send these to the root" than for "these have special non-DNS protocol uses" with points to the documents describing those uses. 
> _______________________________________________

That'd be another answer; but given that the _result_ of the
registration in both cases would be the same, I'm inclined to say that
the registry we use ought to be the same one.  I don't feel strongly
about it, but fewer registries is probably better in this case.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com