IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Wed, 01 July 2015 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.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 B6DC41A8ACC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.431
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 I9RJfgOkjP9f for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 330141A8A0C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
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 Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:35:35 -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 15.00.1044.021; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:35:35 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request
Thread-Index: AQHQs/6i6EfEJZjc7ki3Wf/0xfSz0J3G1M0AgABHW4D//8SDAA==
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:35:35 +0000
Message-ID: <D1B96FAF.C9B6%edward.lewis@icann.org>
References: <D1B951E7.C996%edward.lewis@icann.org> <B26365D7-11B3-441D-BED3-5FEFB671B0FA@gmail.com> <D1B966DB.C9AC%edward.lewis@icann.org> <DF014EDF-819B-47BB-817D-AB13D57A57E9@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF014EDF-819B-47BB-817D-AB13D57A57E9@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3518591732_21249679"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wDdqmPJSkxagwbwghHfXRgyH_JQ>
Cc: "suzworldwide@gmail.com" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request
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: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:37:16 -0000

On 7/1/15, 10:08, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>But I don't think it's impossible that we'll be able to provide guidance,
>such that developers who follow it are reasonably sure of avoiding the
>various types of collisions and ambiguities we're concerned about-- and
>such that there's a clear basis for saying "You're doing something
>outside of the guidance we can provide about how names work in the
>internet, you're on your own."

(struct IETF *) We can always provide guidance.  But processes cannot rely
on applicants (tacit or not) to either be aware of the guidance or, more
significantly, to heed it.  Prepare for the best, expect the worst.  (Or
that "conservative, liberal" bon mot.)  I certainly don't think it is
"right" to *expect* that everyone will heed the guidance, so we need to
build the process as if we didn't give the guidance in the first place.

>This supports the initial suggestion that we need to get serious about a
>6761bis, am I correct?

Yes.  I'm not satisfied with the process in RFC 6761.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email