IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Alain Durand <alain.durand@icann.org> Fri, 30 September 2016 05:17 UTC

Return-Path: <alain.durand@icann.org>
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 0804712B02C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 lGSIARqXLSqL for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4F712B03C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:17:30 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:17:30 -0700
From: Alain Durand <alain.durand@icann.org>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
Thread-Index: AQHSGrNuOlcpl9kqG0u7zc9rzS2/46CRrLyA//+d7SWAAHxtAP//t2UQ
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 05:17:30 +0000
Message-ID: <1B6BA4E8-ECDC-47E6-9377-6889218FC1B4@icann.org>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609292041280.86752@ary.qy> <CAKr6gn04Jj5ar2OhztH2uc4WpFZBZ=WKZdx-1ufdFMb9NAQupQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=zDBcbaPVi50dFJXVVSrsBuUrb52iBu4T76Y_zYuxFkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=5kAb20mGLJPmmuQCL6ta9aJn3uEdVv=gVgG9erQoKkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1km66hoc7VFPvaHi4Sc0WuQxZFtQUPjLjK_Sj6qAtZ5UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1keNUiDAUuVn97XLb3W6oH7zdZhMeNbg3h-O892+acPVQ@mail.gmail.com>, <CAHw9_iKS_BQUV1sJ2vm=CSvHNJ3jH6G8VJKN1kSbc78hauPraw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKS_BQUV1sJ2vm=CSvHNJ3jH6G8VJKN1kSbc78hauPraw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B6BA4E8ECDC47E693776889218FC1B4icannorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rvIzlZ3W0VXAedT-dwUWGeCq3Js>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 30 Sep 2016 05:17:34 -0000

On Sep 29, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net<mailto:warren@kumari.net>> wrote:

On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com<mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> wrote:

So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this discussion is why.  You are both taking past reach other because you are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.


... and why we need a Special Use Names problem statement, and not just a RFC6761 problem statement. This problem is bigger than just 6761...

We will have to agree to disagree. RFC6761 is the document that created this issue. Focusing on what is wrong running its process should be, IMHO, the first step. It is like: first, admit we have a problem.

Alain, speaking solely on my own behalf.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email