Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.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 009C81B358C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:19:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 p5NaNla4lw8K for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (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 728D81B358B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgeo38 with SMTP id o38so55837327qge.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:19:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras_org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Jwno/kcc0Hsn0KlmuLCGMe7AJjji24AaNU2ffid1ZxA=; b=f53W6caRc61fR2cf1//DL4xkWhNDLI2U7eliv4bHu1GSWSXzSgdZrwSopuGW58oIon UrDbVp3NcKosVCooSmb7LnLgtKbpxF5m3NxQkrxRwl3i/oHzRUffVdZTwemN2IDCx/iQ 91er43yJ87M42QMdZ11QnmQ6dDw2LFE/tm2Vo34JGaIRYJF8+XCv3n3EZ11FxsTr6kHy UUgnyr6fjRZ+XTGkZlmxUrrDZKr+zlXkRhdsIqrqAKRi0hh1PN8yRBRBxBxyuR/4EcpY gPF4cceefDnO6TCwMNp2k6UjQ4Kj10KU6wfUVVXCVEsUv6p8n15y35LnO8Jmf3mT9Auh CmLA==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Jwno/kcc0Hsn0KlmuLCGMe7AJjji24AaNU2ffid1ZxA=; b=dEpurmPuohpx90uxb/vbyfUO0+CObN3Gmyqd8n8zLZRmuCrZZRivzJSOwgzAwpqa/V 0dqVRYjouSeO1n64n5iyw/gcDr++W7ltxGHWn6T09jtUCk2qaeRrwxSaDEfUlVNR9nTC FU1SQ+nk7jq1m/ZVIb3ILwLVGh9oMEL7okKow9hbeaTyk968dbnsYbYUskdfpsrWrJGy crlsIpTVRkTLGr0N2qGrmdmFIOp8B07i9HAY5oF0rOfinXe/rPDngPPZqyoxj/Z2IHcL +PaqH2y9UGwYEPxTcZOEEru6WsMV3fMjrehzkBDcMw1MqahIjIh+xemzYk0kTlSkUlcw vy3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXLwHtmdVTUPARdzXbwrGMSq/ry9ljSIq7X4bS/CtaE2pRt/UUSQBP0zny4U6ItmLUmhL3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.94.244 with SMTP id g107mr4813881qge.57.1446686345631; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:19:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.55.80.66 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:19:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:c40:0:3024:69a2:4308:8770:da1c]
In-Reply-To: <563AADE3.2070704@gmail.com>
References: <CAKr6gn0oiK9WKfN95b=muuxG0+0oKv8KDaq=xpabRf-zgCO+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <563AADE3.2070704@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:19:05 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn3FwtSfODBzMCN+iktbrghFoFYqJi3gCkWTx=Ttpj=GTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113a5f06bbb0f50523c0e928"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rHPKdCN_r0TilTr9rYPbmhls1UM>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem
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: <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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:19:08 -0000

Which demands pretty direct pushback on the AD and WG chairs, because
otherwise, we're just building a huge queue of pent-up demand for names.
Names we might decide we don't think should happen, or happen a different
way.

If we allow WG adoption in another WG of something which heads into an
active disputed area in here, I think we're making a huge rod for our own
backs. I understand why people want things like .HOME, but I am very unkeen
to have parallel discussions of the social utility of these names, while we
are actively discussing process and external body roles.

So.. cross-WG and AD discussion time? please?

-G

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use Domain
> Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has a direction.
>
> On 11/5/15 10:11 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
> emerging homenet desire for .home?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
>
> because I believe this isn't just the tail of odd requests from the tor
> people for various hash based names.. its another WG inside the IETF
> process thinking "oh.. .onion worked, so lets go do one"
>
> -G
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing listDNSOP@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>