Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Tue, 27 August 2019 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 53EEE1200F5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 X-bZ7u2UIj6Y for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (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 35D5A1200F7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Q79r9gxw4L1cxOaZlrHEoKj1HiYqHE9/Z7K24ymk5xw=; b=E2d73VCJvxLZwRF6shPsBECkv3 FIONf/RMBmEwg8K8Td4pa4oYWwWpMDv7nVg1qgmnlocfD72mBtLhNgtwDyvF8NKC04H0S6N2fHGgM mOeoXovNbDJ3SPTL6k2PCBASswhqBKog0OSvhYuLejnBvD1B10nkwYMsjB8hFswyjS84=;
Received: from [88.212.170.135] (port=51945 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1i2WwA-0000D0-78 (Exim 4.89) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 08:34:46 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <119AA1A0-86AB-4757-8B15-E36822A3C6FF@gmail.com> <20190818182935.F172A87452C@ary.qy> <CAHw9_iK1aMZduMuyji0jYr96sLuun-yE3a8sccdmiQ85smr57A@mail.gmail.com> <756FFFA3-6153-4490-8472-BD89EA85CF40@hopcount.ca>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <d2c58ce1-1c77-54cc-de0b-ccdf9bae4292@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:34:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <756FFFA3-6153-4490-8472-BD89EA85CF40@hopcount.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/uCTmquSydsbgUkKq6g2LXrNknp8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 08:34:51 -0000


On 23/08/2019 22:39, Joe Abley wrote:

> People have always been able to anchor their non-DNS naming schemes 
> to domain names they control in the DNS as a way to avoid collisions,
> and nobody has seemed to think that's a good idea. Is it more likely
> that someone would anchor their ARTICHOKE alternative naming scheme
> under ARTICHOKE.ALT than it was for them to use (say) ARTICHOKE.NZ or
> ARTICHOKE.GLOBAL or something? Even within the IETF we struggled
> slightly to convince people to use HOME.ARPA instead of HOME, right?

For Homenet it wasn't an alternative naming scheme, it was a "locally 
scoped only" name but still using DNS protocol.

You also wrote:

> I think it's clear that nobody has ever shown signs of wanting to
> anchor anything like this under .ARPA if it's a name that a user
> might ever have to see.

Homenet names are expected to be user visible, but we certainly did 
*not* want them to be under .ARPA.    It was unfortunately the only
available option when the various I* bodies declined to attempt to set 
up the necessary processes and liaisons with ICANN.

Ray