Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 16 September 2016 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A234112B2C4 for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rNv77rAfRJK for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C627012B293 for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u14so72389581lfd.1 for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mKLiID5oe5kOkYa236ilxSAbHLTjDLex06XaGwhPvGQ=; b=USGbRvpCHBhLOz6BTiDDlt4U1Kk3CzRxPbTwHu4SH8qM2g0EErV/Gy1X2LJYpue8sM 2/GVRHasrqdx+Qs3qgn7vDj2GrHX7BD+Z147zg5vDOMjOvLCY9qj6aypg4gW72Z6MlrP iASQIYys19A2wwNGyojCf4YT1oluzw1emnoh0yjdf5kkIyCZZH2SzDxH5kFvoGlrEAUf N6nUaPLBcTOFIKmnUkjJHjrHrAI2C5Dk/F0WhG0b72ij4WJN6cXLDSxkARlTEAI4zdk+ mSKyPUzWf0ytX7vnwptABNuZG+BfD3Jlg5JXy2E2XssZ+P0du+ycoNtP0fVJbuuKHsqr BcjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mKLiID5oe5kOkYa236ilxSAbHLTjDLex06XaGwhPvGQ=; b=Z3HOrKSoHsGYPnQNXGrlUBmT+Q0vvrkC/2KtK3h3EqxZXlRugSuBw8Z751CFERwwNL GKzgeKdReN5WI8Z/pEHhcU2DTOAxL9Nmw8f/x+Hc+P8kJrTq1VILfzgDOKyVm7pC6iVo w+W6cKS1Qm6ftV3IqsV8xV0Sp7ygDrp/IHZoEE/PKYXRZAxm6QfDhsO5jHJ9muhKDbZY XZShtOBZ1lZ+8rUdkSU1/g1Kh8+ntX4wNf7db8QNY6oNnnwThOypu5gxTw6sQd2qyLn0 1MUJuIiytpjaB43fO3VISMnJ71Ao2NAMXaITbYM03YNlRKt++kDvwVdpFgaRxjLdrE9s mArQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNlClXjQl6JnoPLf4tTYW21MFnKndjKJTbRWeyXYJyiP0j4CYI+2IOplJikjT4dXMeCRFHmUJQqw2mXTQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q2mr6901660lfq.5.1474052284881; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160916181356.70566.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <> <20160916181356.70566.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:57:24 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140245cd222fb053ca48afb
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>, Suzanne Woolf <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:58:08 -0000

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine <> wrote:

> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
> adpkja.  The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, since
> there are a lot of other names on the Internet such as URIs and handle
> system names, and this is about domain names.

BTW, if this is your only reason for preferring one document to the other,
it's pretty thin.   Maybe "Internet Names" is the wrong term to use.   It's
one that we came up with pretty much on the spur of the moment in Buenos
Aires, because we didn't want to use "Domain Names," because "Domain Names"
is too easily confused with "Domain Name System Protocol."   Personally, I
like Domain Names, but I agree that the term begs for confusion.

Point being, whichever document you like, we ought to figure out what term
to use.   If it's "Domain Name," I'm fine with that.  I  used "Internet
Name" because that seemed to be the consensus in the room, not because I'm
wedded to it.