Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 13:40 UTC
Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 BDCEA1A0120 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 06:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 hCDem2dGtg9i for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 06:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 2EF6E1A01A9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 06:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5547DA01D5; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:40:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 06:40:26 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <201503181101.t2IB1LBL099870@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:40:22 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <375B88FB-79D8-404A-9543-C0B536FF5CAD@nominum.com>
References: <55089F07.5020200@gmail.com> <201503181101.t2IB1LBL099870@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/k9jVg1eK7EkE-r-6HuzCN0HsPbw>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:40:34 -0000
On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote: > Following this discussion from a distance, I cannot help wondering > whether this is special names stuff might in violate RFC 2860 section 4.3. I don't see it. It looks like 2860 explicitly supports what is being proposed here. Where do you see a conflict?
- [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) hellekin
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) hellekin
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) hellekin
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”) Edward Lewis