IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sat, 02 April 2016 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
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 DFF0412D18B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 12:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 WtxdFgIs1sCO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 3AA8A12D161 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-b257.meeting.ietf.org ([IPv6:2001:67c:370:176:51ca:6ceb:88d2:12]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u32JEUOZ064942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:14:31 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, str4d <str4d@i2pmail.org>
References: <20160328185353.685C5AE51A@smtp.postman.i2p> <20160401104034.2A6E4AE52E@smtp.postman.i2p> <CAKr6gn3o2VP7kHa7T03DoX3NQQ1yJQUfDu7rL=3eoUpLxC_OUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <a3970768-c67e-fe7a-0b02-ca80da39d592@bogus.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 16:14:29 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn3o2VP7kHa7T03DoX3NQQ1yJQUfDu7rL=3eoUpLxC_OUw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5MsWiD36JbwsDEIkfQ6cNCsgGErITBw6v"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kqB4-YfMyihumDjDa9Z5Gv7Jp2Q>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 19:14:42 -0000

On 4/1/16 4:53 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> Whats your reaction going to be, to a closed 6761 because if you come
> to the microphone with a "but we built to the userbase, we have
> millions" and make bambi eyes, I feel a bit like saying "you were
> warned"
> 
> ie, squatting a domain, is squatting a domain, no  matter how much you
> believe in your own process. If you populate code to the label, a
> specific label, you're in moral hazard.
> 
> You cannot predict what label (if any) you will get. You need to code
> agile, to a label being in another space (eg .alt) which is also
> unknown. it has to be in a .conf or other runtime option, not hard
> coded.

which would be super useful implementation advice to the community so
not to create moral hazard in the future.

> forever.
> 
> -G
> 
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:40 AM, str4d <str4d@i2pmail.org> wrote:
>> On 29/03/16 07:53, John Levine wrote:
>>> Finally, no matter what we do, at some point someone will come by with
>>> .GARLIC which is like .ONION but stronger and they will say (with some
>>> justification) that it's used by a zillion people around the world.
>>> "You should have used GARLIC.ALT." "Yeah, I guess so, but we didn't,
>>> sorry."  Then we'll have to deal with it one way or the other.  I hope
>>> that .alt will push that day off farther into the future but it's
>>> unlikely to push it to infinity.
>>
>> Injecting a little levity: I2P does in fact use a variant of onion
>> routing called garlic routing! But we are already in the 6761 process
>> for .I2P, and have absolutely no desire to take garlic any further than
>> a technical metaphor :)
>>
>> str4d
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email