IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)

Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> Wed, 18 March 2015 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 7561E1A003A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.184
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 ugcl1rzzsUbg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bela.nlnetlabs.nl (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:15]) (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 EF9EA1A0019 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bela.nlnetlabs.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bela.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t2IB1LBL099870 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:01:21 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jaap@NLnetLabs.nl)
Message-Id: <201503181101.t2IB1LBL099870@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-reply-to: <55089F07.5020200@gmail.com>
References: <55089F07.5020200@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> message dated "Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:39:19 +0000."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <99868.1426676481.1@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:01:21 +0100
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:01:21 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/n2uk-LRgB15B1B8FCUFm1i8-LuM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)
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, 18 Mar 2015 11:01:25 -0000

 Tim Wicinski writes:

 > The WG has several documents that we need to spend time in Dallas moving 
 > towards completion. But we also believe the RFC 6761 drafts should not 
 > be given short shrift.
 > 
 > Accordingly, we are tentatively planning a Virtual Interim Meeting to 
 > dive a little deeper on the special names drafts, including possible 
 > architectural implications of the apparent increase in interest in RFC 
 > 6761, as we attempt to muddle through the questions we’ve seen and the 
 > ones we anticipate.
 > 

Following this discussion from a distance, I cannot help wondering
whether this is special names stuff might in violate RFC 2860 section 4.3.

	jaap

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email