Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 22 March 2017 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 41E56129BAF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=BRAyBogZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=nbeWLokk
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 ludRg-WAu9qd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB79B1294BF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74854BB82E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:45:44 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1490204744; bh=Nap/hJ2tgt4HIZT3sX3HtqU77vSRMXZBwJcibei4BDM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BRAyBogZW5Zg2rKk4b7VRYCgukd5pSH/tyVFBg2oIvE/ESjcKlDSRKhyUBWPXblmq FbYUKQaxZHgmK/+ZRvhIj6OcGmqA3gBC9FFXGPSyqvrw27ygTbb2XRq88nzsI08b1+ 2QroD2RU1U1qblzPFMTSUpVULvGxB6wE8/MlCu74=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K4TvGTGcspTv for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:45:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:45:40 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1490204742; bh=Nap/hJ2tgt4HIZT3sX3HtqU77vSRMXZBwJcibei4BDM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nbeWLokkTyrwyZKOjAlPcRlyXHtlymkFTP9m+4INNAgvl8rxRDe6wrkrWO9xRSM0g 5z1ZbVLxrApksbX/HHLV5d6zv98iqKFlOhf7zPlZ+HvY/r8Bvrn/UTgh5ki6AShEQZ J/YHyZPC1gl3ao83kWrq0KIRsdKR1IDIFT8oDMK0=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170322174540.GV666@mx4.yitter.info>
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> <B1F8C6D6-7160-4BB0-B8A4-39D0027A52C1@gmail.com> <20170321150008.6D5C0671EB83@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170321150008.6D5C0671EB83@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lvAi0S4beVDsBwxn7Co8xYuiXD8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
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: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:45:47 -0000

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:00:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> What is the point of having a MoU that names may need to be assigned
> in the root namespace if there cannot be a entry added to the root
> namespace if there is a technical need to it?

You are conflating "root namespace" and "root zone of the DNS".  We
have in fact created the former.  But this draft asks for the latter,
which is different.  We have an MoU, and it says that we won't meddle
in that zone.

Best regrds,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com