IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 04 December 2013 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 177721AE2F7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:14:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 LSWqoaC9LYzr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:14:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpha.virtualized.org (alpha.virtualized.org [199.233.229.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F201AE2ED for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:14:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B3F846FD; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:14:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from alpha.virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (alpha.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02969-08; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:14:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (c-24-4-109-25.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.4.109.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc@virtualized.org) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 369FF845D5; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:14:11 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5973EEB7-FDC9-4C16-B00B-7A10EFEF5D3F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131204094449.GA5492@nic.fr>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 09:14:10 -0800
Message-Id: <9650BF6D-727B-4EF3-B357-7E4E2FDDE0AF@virtualized.org>
References: <BF87877A-8989-4AA4-9ED1-52C82E1BC538@nominum.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1312011206480.12923@bofh.nohats.ca> <20131202151651.GD16808@mx1.yitter.info> <A12FD3E0-58F6-4490-877F-A9C59405F717@vpnc.org> <6DBBC8339C394DBDAE4FE1F764E02A8D@hopcount.ca> <20131203170825.GA17211@nic.fr> <21D03162-81D1-494A-89A9-41BE89D28A0E@nominum.com> <BB7627E9-8D50-48E5-B809-64AE4D574271@virtualized.org> <20131203221006.GB5689@sources.org> <D3E446D0-F9ED-4671-A1C2-29A15D3DE010@virtualized.org> <20131204094449.GA5492@nic.fr>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]
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, 04 Dec 2013 17:14:18 -0000

Stephane,

On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:44 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> It seems a criticism of RFC 6761, not of the current registration proposal. 

Yes and no.  Yes, I think 6761 is broken in parts (somehow I missed discussion of the draft), however the issue I'm worried about is the proliferation of the pseudo-domains and the confusion/noise I'm worried they'll cause.

>> Ignoring that, other than aesthetics, what is the downside of
>> <p2p>.alt or <p2p>.not-dns or <p2p>.arpa again?
> 
> My main concern will be that it won't be easier or faster to get a
> <p2p>.arpa and we'll see exactly the same discussions.

On the plus side, I suspect there would be less of an assumption that <p2p>.arpa is a regular domain name.

On the minus side, management of .ARPA is a part of the IANA functions contract which implies changes will require US DoC NTIA approval, so I'd agree that there is a potential for delays and ... non-technical discussion.

But how about .alt or .not-dns (or as has been suggested .p2p)?

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email