Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 30 September 2016 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 AF2B612B032 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.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 l3-tOYROFhEb for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 9377812B010 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t7so95736504qkh.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tmk6ym+zQa4gMX/RfROm90jHWedIcXvBQ7XHccr/Lxg=; b=PK7AUpo4dBoRQGti3J0n/nXYmtA5NFknDfWv4Cy4X6Z5jOVcTWDUAx/b9hgQpmy8i9 GJvNSFBO0im1/Fj1acvKXjywEN3AjoTTE0XVYjYVMjX0zEN3yGKm3ReRoKlScMnAM4FY AcF5PLu7YCY/mB9qUohwqv/j2SEr41OkyivFqksAIT8Jq6PIDoYfH2rtQDRxZqlSBHtY C45OB4ZNQam1R7flWLoTW3VcIKk8jgkyxT4g+KefI7ywuU0EGPxin+EdLpDgM5O+m/gg fLSGHh/tKz/9HkLZC5v8GsQR3oCVO4sGgnWwCm938Vvdxn76NAUcpn1m0DobmLJobMTB Qfdg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Tmk6ym+zQa4gMX/RfROm90jHWedIcXvBQ7XHccr/Lxg=; b=Gt0btaCBzz04OfGEl8EJDL4xtKN6i0tW0X1hDX6NS3dPEineRmikPB/deZecKqMRHb MqjUJKrFqHkstSKVeFCkxFvNoQ1rXp8iVs+OMtSUeuBjnQcfRUza0y8E/0wiN48EL5+C lC+3cBBpzdOwGL8qjkXDeFXvN77I0gxrq+zVoEUjL7LuRjCbDwcxJEqBp8Lfp+0B04+F k2FepcAHV9xQ9J3mp7XKWzN8Q6btLlLKfcTUguzms3m07V2aqRT6iBJ9T1Nla0GSMBNi YY8iqmSiz/B2GG4iGtzzk/r+GhcdbtG0d67VXEnDzAYnZDyNIemfTw1jN8AFa9KUvWse w6Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmKT0xiVwZi+Fp9I5IVecGbGwbmrnHlUhjF1P9wDJFmS/vo2dbHLTV01gC4Wff1oSUcYS4tOVLOdWEhS0Yg
X-Received: by 10.55.188.195 with SMTP id m186mr4901875qkf.180.1475203043684; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.147.196 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1keNUiDAUuVn97XLb3W6oH7zdZhMeNbg3h-O892+acPVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609292041280.86752@ary.qy> <CAKr6gn04Jj5ar2OhztH2uc4WpFZBZ=WKZdx-1ufdFMb9NAQupQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=zDBcbaPVi50dFJXVVSrsBuUrb52iBu4T76Y_zYuxFkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=5kAb20mGLJPmmuQCL6ta9aJn3uEdVv=gVgG9erQoKkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1km66hoc7VFPvaHi4Sc0WuQxZFtQUPjLjK_Sj6qAtZ5UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1keNUiDAUuVn97XLb3W6oH7zdZhMeNbg3h-O892+acPVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:37:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iKS_BQUV1sJ2vm=CSvHNJ3jH6G8VJKN1kSbc78hauPraw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04550863fdbc053db079e2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mCqeDSmgImwzmQm24pRL1OxpfJQ>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
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: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 02:37:26 -0000

On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement,
> this discussion is why.  You are both taking past reach other because you
> are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.
>


... and why we need a Special Use Names problem statement, and not just a
RFC6761 problem statement. This problem is bigger than just 6761...

W

>
> On Sep 29, 2016 6:03 PM, "George Michaelson" <ggm@algebras.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ggm@algebras.org');>> wrote:
>
> Thats precisely why its NOT a false analogy: the design model in the
> IETF is that the value doesn't matter, but in the DNS, the design
> model is "follow the money" and 6761 crosses the bars: it enables
> people in tech-space, to reserve labels in meat-space.
>
> We got it wrong. We should have encouraged s/w designers not to brand
> their DNS breakout string early, but provided a mechanism to give them
> a token under .arpa, or something else, pending a decision, and we
> should have made it clear the specific string wasn't their chosing. If
> they see inherent value in the string, then they immediately walked to
> being an applicant in ICANN gTLD space: the technical merit argument
> doesn't relate.
>
> Sorry John, but to me its not a "false analogy" its exactly what I
> meant. 6761 is a process fail.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:41 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','johnl@taugh.com');>> wrote:
> >> The latter, is the decision-role of ICANN. Under advisement, yes.
> >> respecting IETF process yes. But the mechanism as written in 6761
> >> vests IETF with a process outcome which specifies where the label is,
> >> and what value. Thats just wrong.
> >
> >
> > For some version of wrong, I suppose, but it seems a false analogy to
> > me.  Nobody cares if their new RRTYPE is number 666 or numbr 273, or
> > what IP address range they get, but a lot of people care if their TLD
> > or pseudo-TLD is .lksjdk or .money.
> >
> >
> > R's,
> > John
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','DNSOP@ietf.org');>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','DNSOP@ietf.org');>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf