Re: [DNSOP] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 03:56 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 2CF543A0C7A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=hBR993N2; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=o16h1W0u
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 GpJFl0HgCUSJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 7D0283A0C6B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14894 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2020 03:56:16 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=3a2b.5f239660.k2007; bh=O/EfGbqoikr+59hsC0JIy8iLRUo2feopT5sGmsoANOw=; b=hBR993N2cuBjHc9e+vmVtIg7qK8GWDyMoa2aG8rlmDCrV0swm40cTEJEzOKjueh8C/nvETKvjZDK3WOHm1YjGNsmrHFXJo751fgxtpj1RLaIcGAHwzAPmM+bEGiLXG16XmrjgxwkM730Mln6qafnzBAiDzUhzW6SU/4P8nrmA1MbzTeywT4ME0bRi4VMOpGaNZxvaDbQAztIiGhYsCJ4XmKNvHatdWNyheqv8dRaEGZe5614dsmdq958Pwb/d+ls
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=3a2b.5f239660.k2007; bh=O/EfGbqoikr+59hsC0JIy8iLRUo2feopT5sGmsoANOw=; b=o16h1W0u0uPQjCNob3SeHJpVcVbA8xMUORVHnmENZyh4yRwhktfKaLKTZks4arciOmupniOFY2r6fLe7TWSPK1ysvuW8Xh7SqpjuZCOpfFOTTM9tTufzyA3SM4HY5hD5HgPLwaesG50rO8tAUV3oRaECc+gV+EFcjDLSe9He30VnxBk4XA+BstxMa+jDSw1ZRBgAmuS8lWpIYGWtr3xttzTpVlJ592bmfWNzImke5N3BHqZNSQ3pNuXNRoeTu1Cz
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 31 Jul 2020 03:56:15 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id C0C841DAD1B0; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 30 Jul 2020 23:56:15 -0400
Message-Id: <20200731035615.C0C841DAD1B0@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: paul@nohats.ca
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2007301630050.418549@bofh.nohats.ca>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/oaz_q24p3pMw4g_S2-SzFl8NkDE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 31 Jul 2020 03:56:19 -0000

In article <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2007301630050.418549@bofh.nohats.ca> you write:
>Seems like .org needs to update an 18+ year old operation policy, and
>just to clarify that has nothing to do with this draft as .org already
>has this problem.

I believe that every public contracted TLD does the same sort of
suspensions that .ORG does since they all have similar contracts. I
wouldn't bs surprised if a lot of ccTLDs do too, since many have their
policies similar to the gTLD ones.

Having just come back from yet another fight over DMARC, I am
extremely unsympathetic to arguments along the lines of "your reality
doesn't match my clever hack, therefore your reality must change." In
this case I can't imagine the TLDs changing since that would require
changing both ICANN contracts and the complex and messy EPP system
used to manage TLDs.

I think the reasonable approach here is to stop further consideration
of this draft until Paul can survey the existing TLD practice and see
how many TLDs really are delegation-only.

R's,
John