IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> Wed, 18 March 2015 14:29 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 511DE1A037B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.383
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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 mcw-ukcdAMww for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:29:19 -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 CD98C1A00BE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:29:18 -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 t2IETGBG034478 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:29:16 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jaap@NLnetLabs.nl)
Message-Id: <201503181429.t2IETGBG034478@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-reply-to: <375B88FB-79D8-404A-9543-C0B536FF5CAD@nominum.com>
References: <55089F07.5020200@gmail.com> <201503181101.t2IB1LBL099870@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <375B88FB-79D8-404A-9543-C0B536FF5CAD@nominum.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> message dated "Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:40:22 -0400."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <34476.1426688956.1@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:29:16 +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 15:29:16 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rLBIbal4U1cdUu2pnY_Ohrx0fGM>
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 14:29:20 -0000

 Ted Lemon writes:

 > On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
 > > Following this discussion from a distance, I cannot help wondering
 > > whether this is special names stuff might in violate RFC 2860 section 4.3.
 > 
 > I don't see it.   It looks like 2860 explicitly supports what is being proposed here.   Where do you see a conflict?
 > 

Just calling something technical doesn't make it so. But that is not
my point. I was just responding on the message about the interim
stating

    "we attempt to muddle through the questions we've seen and the
    ones we anticipate"

I hadn't seen any questions about the relation towards RFC 2860 so
given the proposed special meeting, this is something that could be
discussed.

The pointer from Suzanne to the liaison statement shows that
apparently this as been attended to in the past.

	jaap

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email