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

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 30 September 2016 02:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AC612B038 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.606
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X2Q3Hzisfwng for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDF112B010 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g62so94276956lfe.3 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3ayQ8CUcj1mdtKdumZH84+zSyS/P7W7OTApV6Z1kA8k=; b=wibGe0bvOT4hOosQVe7GWao2hBzB0lfwRbSxnd7hyrjGZSee8F9viN5IQwATKL09Ze +LK/BD3j0qsUT0ygOBwhjaXwbLy0y7BZRHOtNlfUZ8fUh5mJZmbG8nul6dsFJZZndN8H 1kXDJRzNCGlIagXkSPATvM7+vtck+vDOSJ4aJzKZ5xwKgSa70+XfW8LyBQKtsQ9iRTcs ecz3SU3WaU+2/NiLavx4ne7PFVypfreo9I5aS91b2DiZODToMWa2GKxHSmiL5ExND23T DY9RvMFrTUFOZG2FboX93NqAiUa6XSWAlrqgfwFjIiAGNJ8QG5/VukI2G9EGhe74ZZBb 52wQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3ayQ8CUcj1mdtKdumZH84+zSyS/P7W7OTApV6Z1kA8k=; b=EKDzSQsAaOVlMj14VfQOgAGhvaYguBVxvQIXt5OWKF77P3kRNMil7HY/ASyWtw5wVp mGNC9jBStZTQkT91KgQDGtqNOsXxXnTEs8+NrjEFmNS2BH8MkswtTjl4WtcCjrE4YL1N xv2nkdLxT7HIIJpQ2lESswx1KwxlEX+xxo0BiD8pmlkBHuDslYvAAQNzmogIP5im7C0k AWjSA5dLRX1Bqm0TtvWB6CvgXURGwFUtvcxV8HprgkVtBAL/6e/0XayDck5uzplXi9Wz k7h7sVPhgaqE29vLdmjo1Ex94hhbP8lkEToUN9saj7fszL1m2ZzQUp6YPIykn67wN8RD GHjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlzcxiujP59F9Eya2RMYd6SvDPDpm7DcSljv/XV2zoitiOKF3vBI0mNQa2Rdsfxo75EDOOkAPImVET3CQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z130mr1984201lfa.126.1475201487442; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609292041280.86752@ary.qy> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:11:25 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: George Michaelson <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b1738a1ab69053db01c13
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>, John R Levine <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 02:11:32 -0000

So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement,
this discussion is why.  You are both taking past reach other because you
are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.

On Sep 29, 2016 6:03 PM, "George Michaelson" <> wrote:

Thats precisely why its NOT a false analogy: the design model in the
IETF is that the value doesn't matter, but in the DNS, the design
model is "follow the money" and 6761 crosses the bars: it enables
people in tech-space, to reserve labels in meat-space.

We got it wrong. We should have encouraged s/w designers not to brand
their DNS breakout string early, but provided a mechanism to give them
a token under .arpa, or something else, pending a decision, and we
should have made it clear the specific string wasn't their chosing. If
they see inherent value in the string, then they immediately walked to
being an applicant in ICANN gTLD space: the technical merit argument
doesn't relate.

Sorry John, but to me its not a "false analogy" its exactly what I
meant. 6761 is a process fail.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:41 AM, John R Levine <> wrote:
>> The latter, is the decision-role of ICANN. Under advisement, yes.
>> respecting IETF process yes. But the mechanism as written in 6761
>> vests IETF with a process outcome which specifies where the label is,
>> and what value. Thats just wrong.
> For some version of wrong, I suppose, but it seems a false analogy to
> me.  Nobody cares if their new RRTYPE is number 666 or numbr 273, or
> what IP address range they get, but a lot of people care if their TLD
> or pseudo-TLD is .lksjdk or .money.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list

DNSOP mailing list