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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 30 July 2021 18:43 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 5D4D23A0A62 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:43:45 -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 Rwul_L59hr07 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:43:39 -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 46A3D3A0A9E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Gbx9y6HGbzDR4; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 20:43:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1627670614; bh=E6dAbt+yvuJ4tUO2THHKMveLzzkPtFyYyhE152cCsEM=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=u/V3+iDnshxFNci66VsZxGOTkaY4mCF6Xjby8r1TmEulZhsHe11wZDOPJh98ehin/ BRyZR8y9Shy0UlHtNal/dljpOubUFLHmlGfRZPXfds0ZJ0IYVJyOVL0MVsUDJfy2Cn cO7DI+fFon9f/AtmoOrIBfUUuXyhqk+vZViniU+s=
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 2PCANv4ZceFM; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 20:43:33 +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 20:43:33 +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 8EA02D4069; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:43:32 -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 14:43:31 -0400
Message-Id: <0E721930-2B00-4546-A6CE-99ED6B0AB1BC@nohats.ca>
References: <6ACDD435-1817-4B1C-8724-F984DC0D3B60@dnss.ec>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6ACDD435-1817-4B1C-8724-F984DC0D3B60@dnss.ec>
To: Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18F72)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/htygJzhtddZ-uJYLddh6xKMgP5M>
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 18:43:53 -0000

On Jul 30, 2021, at 14:34, Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> This is a working group draft, and should be discussed in the WG.

So was draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only until it was killed yesterday due to lack of time because we had to spend it on political discussions with ISO liaisons.

Paul