IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-19

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Wed, 14 December 2022 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 7D22FC1524CD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 02:19:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sYQPqL5mjSan for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 02:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-4317.proton.ch (mail-4317.proton.ch [185.70.43.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB658C1516F7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 02:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:19:26 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=protonmail; t=1671013168; x=1671272368; bh=Lz3WKMMIsajA1nEdpDhCkjn8/kEx3KjexRtg6gC6Ki4=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=XHUfekz89NR40eFmyf6or8eTlWO3UrYENfw08TQ7k+gqaYotGpR6WM1HQnyp+oz5h nnU8jP+xGE+qQz72c3u3eq8hG0rnF3VGzgBZcECh2TD7i7m0sb7Lx/U7QzppWrbVmI O/2WJnUF5QRaId6PpCawb1XDtvxMsqlDWN8wkKWXBpk/lIcs/giKzEMQPXhs25Xwh7 MpJIwYAUWcPOB2MchmGWKHHGu9U2hyTBbB08nNr4Xz+ryzY7bzXpHPEgMTmdSm6Mxn YpKtZudbAvsdCuSzE+36y2sNeedHsuto2E0z414fWrX0c9WfNLM5HKCa1mnuM8XMRt YriCO2jKsdpiA==
To: Martin Schanzenbach <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2k3m5sj59-6nJQroDIS5yJivZtAMa_b-_7s7wVeCeb1Dy1GHJMT5EsnsI5YN9AJYtmhCzbq-TbAlS1lUxlpQd1LfE3kxyRaCbbz4mnTPfG4=@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20221214100817.qsuejhcom24hqoxl@werkbank>
References: <B76AEB6C-9C0F-4DB1-A1E9-39E325D9E5A7@icann.org> <20221214100817.qsuejhcom24hqoxl@werkbank>
Feedback-ID: 62430589:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_zSel3CyQZHSWivtd8Me7eNRYr0R4EMtCdPyzaCk8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wT-Czx5nYdZs_umAzux-fyziLn8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-19
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 14 Dec 2022 10:19:36 -0000

Hi Martin,

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:08, Martin Schanzenbach <mschanzenbach@posteo.de> wrote:

> "Developers are wholly responsible for dealing with any collisions"
>
> I think this is an impossible task and as a developer that is addressed
> here I have to say that we cannot do that unilaterally for our
> implementation/design because collisions occur when _others_ do
> something.

I don't understand why you say this is impossible when it is what happens today and what has always happened.

But perhaps I don't understand something about how "developers" is intended to be interpreted. I agree it would be nice to clarify this sentence if it is to remain.

Joe

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email