Return-Path: 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 069E812947D for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:51:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 KmueMM4gCyP4 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (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 4F9C9129685 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id v127so1231029qkb.2 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ax1tNZY6V5PzPWWQic6qnlyIK+MlLsSA2yxzn4GEwvA=; b=QBgc8ZQsAeV7suzLk+5rFl8fbQzpetEHhxfjf40/p8Uco8DgCO+e9jF2P9qQ5hMQZ9 /4k+OMPFFxAfjIkVHkbcKR8IA+VjYZEU51tQ7Pk0vyJ8rK14zkrYxJQ77Brbgcx4HCH+ aqfHtlIfeFrsL2crknCvRfNKtSfgUHtQx48aP4igdhRwGSkKA5tpB9coilOwLIzm2WhG jKCP2cbifOHCV+MJrUufHj11EEnCv0h1p/VUPXofG8La0IEnMSsVaAluieMzqFnE++dd k5O+wi09m9JQKQQKXiuEETysx//XLryHG3kCyRiaAk+38uzmKcQNV2UjBu95J9EMS6FH Bkcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ax1tNZY6V5PzPWWQic6qnlyIK+MlLsSA2yxzn4GEwvA=; b=qtxHugm3ER204s6aXYBYeQD5CNLM5tTO5iactTCAUKXUzjWxRvtEe4XWdH9K3nPOna 60Q+4Hrdt96XerlaCR29yEN7ydj4Xr2UvNQHi+XFzxd03pYisNR0LK4MxgP96IPmXCPM RAxm7klZ7EhgaH8Qh9QPGeX3hYop1Yq9fGZkJelvOql8M4dXOkCNF4h5+fTCxapZTbl7 YU7OThT7MqcDZuJQHwliftq1UJ/K0X0K6/qcgLUpl+kMB38K8TuglIC6rH2dj4f9fF8f aFbshzNKf4ulKSTVypJ6vStw3SF6CdlyIH4yULdOvt2qes4TSMPBEHMRcg83MRKTOACw dG+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2xi1OLgRP+WLmKhXLXcy4LRMhvt+eks0JF5eDi1Ucm4R0bs2Xg9NDRCNPJ+dPt1A== X-Received: by 10.55.168.66 with SMTP id r63mr3951857qke.92.1490359891457; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:5121:50f3:95c6:b3af? ([2601:18f:801:600:5121:50f3:95c6:b3af]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d4sm1432916qkf.30.2017.03.24.05.51.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Droms Message-Id: <2B48D72D-A052-4793-85F6-63F4D09E8629@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C3472CB-4DA0-4F17-8DB7-401561D1886C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:51:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3378ac6d-c8c8-28e5-b762-23d0d5f0d660@nic.cz> Cc: dnsop To: =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= References: <148943321331.20401.7762893838737928060@ietfa.amsl.com> <630A7AFE-B9D4-4E77-8744-0D6FD0F5A000@gmail.com> <84ab880c-885a-9c4f-7857-5adf7d18b6e1@nic.cz> <3378ac6d-c8c8-28e5-b762-23d0d5f0d660@nic.cz> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:51:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3C3472CB-4DA0-4F17-8DB7-401561D1886C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek = wrote: >=20 > On 21.3.2017 13:23, Ralph Droms wrote: >> Petr, thanks for your review and feedback... >>=20 >>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek = wrote: >>>=20 >>> On 14.3.2017 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote: >>>> draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 includes revised text to address = issues raised during the WG last call and other editorial improvements. = The list of issues, discussion and resolution are in GitHub: = https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps >>>>=20 >>>> There is one substantial addition to the list of problems in = section 3: the use of DNSSEC with Special-Use Domain Names. >>>=20 >>> The 03 version is a very good one. >>>=20 >>> I would like to comment on one side-effect of the changes: >>> The Summary section was removed and the text moved elsewhere. IMHO = this >>> makes the document less understandable to a person who was not = involved >>> with its development. >>>=20 >>> For this reason I propose new Summary section, which would be = basically >>> current 4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names. >>>=20 >>> The reference to these two I-Ds can be at the same place as current = 4.1.4. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> So the new text would look like: >>>=20 >>> 4.1.4. Expired Internet Drafts Relating to SUDN >>> /links to/ >>> [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] >>> [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names] >>>=20 >>> 6. Summary >>> As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use >>> Domain Name registry, as documented in >>> [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and >>> [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], the IAB initiated a = review >>> of the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the = registry. >>> This review was identified as in the charter of the IETF DNSOP >>> working group, and the review has been conducted in that working >>> group. The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] notified ICANN of >>> the review, affirmed that the discussion would be "open and >>> transparent to participation by interested parties" and explicitly >>> invited members of the ICANN community to participate. >>> This document is a product of the IETF DNSOP working group review = of >>> the registry process in RFC 6761. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I believe that original 4.1.4 nicely summarizes what this document = is about. >>=20 >> I agree that some of the text belongs in a more prominent place, to = alert the reader to the process behind the document. I've opened an = issue: draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 >>=20 >> Our proposed solution is to move some of the detail behind this = document from section 4.1.4 to the Introduction. >>=20 >> OLD: >>=20 >> 1. Introduction >>=20 >> [...] >>=20 >> Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for >> Special-Use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for = adding >> to the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies >> might be implemented. Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF >> has been asked to designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in >> this registry. During the evaluation process for these Special-Use >> Domain Names, the IETF encountered several different sorts of = issues. >> Because of this, the IETF has decided to investigate the problem = and >> decide if and how the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether = it >> should be deprecated. >>=20 >> NEW: >>=20 >> 1. Introduction >>=20 >> [...] >>=20 >> Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for >> Special-Use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for = adding >> to the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies >> might be implemented. Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF >> has been asked to designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in >> this registry. During the evaluation process for these Special-Use >> Domain Names, the IETF encountered several different sorts of = issues. >> Because of this, the IETF has decided to investigate the problem = and >> decide if and how the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether = it >> should be deprecated. The IETF DSNOP working group charter was >> extended to include conducting a review of the process for adding >> names to the registry that is defined in RFC 6761. This document is = a >> product of that review. >>=20 >> OLD: >>=20 >> 4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names >>=20 >> As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use >> Domain Name registry, as documented in >> [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and >> [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], the IAB initiated a = review >> of the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the = registry. >> This review was identified as in the charter of the IETF DNSOP >> working group, and the review has been conducted in that working >> group. The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] notified ICANN of >> the review, affirmed that the discussion would be "open and >> transparent to participation by interested parties" and explicitly >> invited members of the ICANN community to participate. >>=20 >> This document is a product of the IETF DNSOP working group review = of >> the registry process in RFC 6761. >>=20 >> NEW: >>=20 >> 4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names >>=20 >> As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use >> Domain Name registry, as documented in >> [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and >> [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], a review was chartered >> of the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry >> (as explained earlier). The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] >> notified ICANN of the review, affirmed that the discussion would be >> "open and transparent to participation by interested parties" and >> explicitly invited members of the ICANN community to participate. >>=20 >> - Ralph >=20 > Sounds good to me, thank you! The updated text will appear in the next published rev of the doc. = Thanks for your review and quick feedback... - Ralph >=20 > Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek @ CZ.NIC >=20 >>>> In the authors' opinion, draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 addresses all = of the WG last call issues and the document is ready to be forwarded to = the IESG. >>>>=20 >>>> - Ralph >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:26 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>>>> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of = the IETF. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Title : Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement >>>>> Authors : Ted Lemon >>>>> Ralph Droms >>>>> Warren Kumari >>>>> Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt >>>>> Pages : 27 >>>>> Date : 2017-03-13 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC = 6761 >>>>> has been shown through experience to present unanticipated >>>>> challenges. This memo presents a list, intended to be = comprehensive, >>>>> of the problems that have been identified. In addition it reviews >>>>> the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF = publications >>>>> and some publications from other organizations relating to = Special- >>>>> Use Domain Names. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 >>>>>=20 >>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at = tools.ietf.org. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > --=20 > Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek @ CZ.NIC --Apple-Mail=_3C3472CB-4DA0-4F17-8DB7-401561D1886C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek <petr.spacek@nic.cz> = wrote:

On 21.3.2017 13:23, Ralph Droms wrote:
Petr, thanks for your review and feedback...

On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:52 = AM, Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:

On 14.3.2017 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote:
draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 includes revised text to address = issues raised during the WG last call and other editorial improvements. =  The list of issues, discussion and resolution are in GitHub: https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps

There is one substantial addition to the list = of problems in section 3: the use of DNSSEC with Special-Use Domain = Names.

The 03 version is a = very good one.

I would like to comment on = one side-effect of the changes:
The Summary section was = removed and the text moved elsewhere. IMHO this
makes the = document less understandable to a person who was not involved
with its development.

For this = reason I propose new Summary section, which would be basically
current 4.1.4.  Liaison Statement on Technical Use of = Domain Names.

The reference to these two = I-Ds can be at the same place as current 4.1.4.


So the new text would look like:

4.1.4.  Expired Internet Drafts Relating = to SUDN
 /links to/
 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds]
 [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names]

6. Summary
 As a result of = processing requests to add names to the Special-Use
 Domain Name registry, as documented in
 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and
 [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], the IAB = initiated a review
 of the process defined in RFC = 6761 for adding names to the registry.
 This review = was identified as in the charter of the IETF DNSOP
 working group, and the review has been conducted in = that working
 group.  The Liaison Statement = [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] notified ICANN of
 the review, = affirmed that the discussion would be "open and
 transparent to participation by interested parties" and = explicitly
 invited members of the ICANN community to = participate.
 This document is a product of the IETF = DNSOP working group review of
 the registry process = in RFC 6761.


I believe that = original 4.1.4 nicely summarizes what this document is about.

I agree that some of the text = belongs in a more prominent place, to alert the reader to the process = behind the document.  I've opened an issue: = draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Our proposed = solution is to move some of the detail behind this document from section = 4.1.4 to the Introduction.

OLD:

1.  Introduction

  [...]

  Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an = IANA registry for
  Special-Use Domain Names = [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding
  to = the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies
  might be implemented.  Since the publication = of RFC 6761, the IETF
  has been asked to = designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in
  this registry.  During the evaluation = process for these Special-Use
  Domain Names, = the IETF encountered several different sorts of issues.
  Because of this, the IETF has decided to = investigate the problem and
  decide if and how = the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether it
  should be deprecated.

NEW:

1.  Introduction

  [...]

  Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an = IANA registry for
  Special-Use Domain Names = [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding
  to = the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies
  might be implemented.  Since the publication = of RFC 6761, the IETF
  has been asked to = designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in
  this registry.  During the evaluation = process for these Special-Use
  Domain Names, = the IETF encountered several different sorts of issues.
  Because of this, the IETF has decided to = investigate the problem and
  decide if and how = the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether it
  should be deprecated.  The IETF DSNOP = working group charter was
  extended to include = conducting a review of the process for adding
  names to the registry that is defined in RFC = 6761. This document is a
  product of that = review.

OLD:

4.1.4.  Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain = Names

  As a result of processing = requests to add names to the Special-Use
  Domain = Name registry, as documented in
  [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and
  [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], the = IAB initiated a review
  of the process defined = in RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry.
  This review was identified as in the charter of = the IETF DNSOP
  working group, and the review = has been conducted in that working
  group. =  The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] notified ICANN of
  the review, affirmed that the discussion would be = "open and
  transparent to participation by = interested parties" and explicitly
  invited = members of the ICANN community to participate.

  This document is a product of the IETF DNSOP = working group review of
  the registry process = in RFC 6761.

NEW:

4.1.4.  Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain = Names

  As a result of processing = requests to add names to the Special-Use
  Domain = Name registry, as documented in
  [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and
  [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], a = review was chartered
  of the process defined in = RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry
  (as = explained earlier).  The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS]
  notified ICANN of the review, affirmed that the = discussion would be
  "open and transparent to = participation by interested parties" and
  explicitly invited members of the ICANN community = to participate.

- Ralph

Sounds good to me, thank you!

The updated text = will appear in the next published rev of the doc.  Thanks for your = review and quick feedback...

- = Ralph


Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek  @ =  CZ.NIC

In the authors' opinion, draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 = addresses all of the WG last call issues and the document is ready to be = forwarded to the IESG.

- Ralph


On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:26 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the = on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work = item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.

     Title =           : = Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement
     Authors =         : Ted Lemon
          &nb= sp;            = ;Ralph Droms
          &nb= sp;            = ;Warren Kumari
Filename =        : = draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt
Pages =           : 27
= Date =            : = 2017-03-13

Abstract:
The = Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761
has been shown through experience to present unanticipated
challenges.  This memo presents a list, intended to be = comprehensive,
of the problems that have been identified. =  In addition it reviews
the history of Domain Names = and summarizes current IETF publications
and some = publications from other organizations relating to Special-
Use Domain Names.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/=

There's also a htmlized version available = at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03

A diff from the previous version is available = at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-0= 3


Please note that it may = take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until = the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by = anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

-- 
Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek  @ =  CZ.NIC

= --Apple-Mail=_3C3472CB-4DA0-4F17-8DB7-401561D1886C--