Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Mon, 27 March 2017 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 B2993127241 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 17:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 SRTvFC-0wc88 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 17:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com (mail-vk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31E5A126C89 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 17:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id s68so35275243vke.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 17:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8EwIonvzEfbChZFIFQUPUkPl4EfiZ/Mfp9axylNFQcg=; b=Bjh13cBUGh3SV6m937jLseeWZqurflCpFIt2p3RhJkv9Qu5gR52oYnWpq+olZ44Jq9 WYNiqg2rlOwmGdSXap8KQdWmioGCcW4EX8QDoe5nm6Ys6QbO5me2958Iq9sBxVFVi4oE QsIGFBbllal7hXVnGwJda+ynhPAfrty/Oy+Uo434XxH2ogdaAO8wwV5ZfWF2F9r//SEj F/UmMw+gG+Urv8Jo2Vh2oTsg34xpLaaWJKerXaLxyNR5HGwzDzXCfVOsO71Kh+DKvwqJ zz7dmd//2r2J4eDg7BXFnzIUKlzyz0Kr03ZtuQjFl7edfSH66bFnstc7WjDCbLVtNCLd gMgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8EwIonvzEfbChZFIFQUPUkPl4EfiZ/Mfp9axylNFQcg=; b=TZluwLriFrSq4LpVHfi0zoQ7AgHhyyFmlO/V0jbix9HLnzSqCz5nrivPqxZQah90B2 xNg8eEqjyJNjovWchl76RvTJiobNjHShjo6ifEKnczit1ojMuuj1ZOGEu8+fE9+jmYRT WGYqjcZbxXw74Dkzlu/MKCROeLd0zQv0ANqFuQ+bEuwlVhnVU0vuzrxBVEaQBEktXnAc 5fCzkq7ol/BCCqZG2q5Dnb2hOYHGR3U6US0twwdzLzsi+J012uv9gnlAywvLPTPKrI/H i5FKov1aAthdiVlou+qKwLWPAv5NU5pjKAtuukMJg6FY2q6LKRFC7ZCWntFZu1s/+yuW GK5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3cgMZMjXD7ZnEl8BiS118X7hhjydWfpg5XXdMnsc7+q8K8Pu0G3nkXtCOHVUN+Sld8cMaDHg5CUg5EOA==
X-Received: by 10.31.102.69 with SMTP id a66mr8842819vkc.111.1490575016068; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 17:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.20 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 17:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [216.80.61.5]
In-Reply-To: <CALXbJH_Ck38PUPJQ1QktohMkj81J+dBmo9DgfOWvfx9+D6cBOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E07AFAEB-2B84-4610-87E7-94CF32CF3761@fugue.com> <7652B138-FEAB-4138-91FB-D71AFE6BEF2C@vigilsec.com> <6DCFBC9D-666A-4A3C-A418-82BB6AE3D25D@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703210928390.28925@bofh.nohats.ca> <m1cqKPa-0000FeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <71F88034-72C5-4AEE-9ACE-3493A1173634@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703211011170.30281@bofh.nohats.ca> <0A544BEC-F719-4A7B-99E4-DC878EBE7B0C@gmail.com> <bfea867e81fc4147be39b424f6e3201f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org> <CALXbJH_Ck38PUPJQ1QktohMkj81J+dBmo9DgfOWvfx9+D6cBOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:36:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn317Oiz2xxg8gKxO+BaEOFfJN4mZiw1DRLEtDgsvqvSyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF dnsop Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kThVo1WNYURuX6zeCKaIgRhPzNU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] .arpa
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:37:00 -0000

Its only my personal opinion, but I think the opposition to use of
.ARPA is almost entirely fictive at this point.  In no sense is the
domain solely used or intended for PTR requests, and I have
successfully operated domains which vest A, AAAA and TXT records in
the zone. Its just a string of characters under a prefix.

The useful quality of the prefix is that it was grandfathered in, and
its vested solely and wholly within agencies which are bound to our
process and behaviour norms. Many of the questions over RFC6761 simply
don't apply in .ARPA. There is no problem statement because there is
no problem.

Like all zones of grandfathers age, zone update and publication is a
bit more arcane than we might want, but thats a surmountable problem.

I would far rather see ALT.arpa and notDNS.arpa and even xn--ls8h.arpa
than almost any other alternative right now.

I have absolutely no problem with HOME.arpa and HOMENET.arpa

I expect almost all of the responses to be human- behaviour ones,
which go to "I don't like it because" so I feel no compunction saying
I do like it.

I particularly like that we don't actually have to do very much beyond
note it, and ask IANA to operate a registry for it.

-G

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Richard Lamb <slamb@xtcn.com> wrote:
>  +1 to all from  frmr usgovie.  We ain't that clever.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > RFC 3172 was written in 2001…
>>
>> RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym:
>> Address and Routing Parameter Area - really?
>>
>> > Respectfully, I’ve always wondered who has this problem (US or non-US)
>> > besides network infrastructure geeks Of a Certain Age (yes, including
>> > myself, and many IETF participants).
>>
>> It's a convenient tool for those hostile to USG "control" of the Internet:
>> ie the US military is responsible for everything under .arpa, the US
>> military's ARPA has still got some special status in the
>> operation/development/control of the Internet, etc, etc. [And say things
>> like "if .arpa isn't for US military control, why can't the string be
>> changed?" or ".arpa hasn't been renamed since the Internet started 25-30
>> years ago. That proves ARPA/DoD is in charge of the Internet.".] It's utter
>> nonsense of course. But that doesn't stop government officials and
>> policymakers from making these arguments. I have seen them do this many
>> times. Sigh. RFC3172 didn't make things better.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>