Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 vs. 6303 WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 3CE4C12957E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:40:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=BK3R+4SC; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=KbBE+sBp
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 B1kcEg-fTBgC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80AFC124281 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 43398 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2017 18:40:23 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=a984.589cb797.k1702; bh=f2QsPi5tmPXmzj8gPEOFPrpPj0AbG0ItpVwhg+xRGm0=; b=BK3R+4SC/0O5B1qZWvvLCzr+OEcljLA98Rp46OKP2hyk19KDUplh7eY+7c5wsp4BKmZpAVtV+JKg67lnk4iA1sAuJ55FhHBRnjR/7Hdn0yaIieKFQIGONMvLTxLS6zqp8PshPXxWSkWX20/0q69Ps3D8QWqmPqd6MMN//4DipwAZbLcrMjzPc3D1Yad8/Zyt66VmOFRRhzRsMtY3z/I0RwyyKvyUlV0rcT2KKy+gkmIYYIt8Ao4iIhuZzgvXo2+4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=a984.589cb797.k1702; bh=f2QsPi5tmPXmzj8gPEOFPrpPj0AbG0ItpVwhg+xRGm0=; b=KbBE+sBpbR8VgFK+1gxAqZAb+H7cZLr8iUvLs2ISwY0oBmTLfycZJt67s/SJgIZHiwHMEmTfZ4MvGN69Tp9intN6vs7O/O4IPwGtwK2v8nx43dqUKkqOHLJhaPPlZl1CfHxM3U9vJlg7bSPrtKhfRwBbhiNiVKGDu8GyFt/AG8I070U67ej7hFz8Ajrq+lEUo05t3kWG0/S3Fs+/yGVBmHgv2tsF89/RQEf+GxtAh81xXAeEAeMGMbfB0FbZ7S8o
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 09 Feb 2017 18:40:23 -0000
Date: 9 Feb 2017 13:40:23 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1702091338420.78427@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20170209163639.sxvw6jg6lqxsavuq@nic.fr>
References: <20170208091536.vqwftrhpole33opl@nic.fr> <20170208151101.14753.qmail@ary.lan> <20170208162718.jxaesl23jc6frykl@nic.fr> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1702081129500.51298@ary.qy> <20170209163639.sxvw6jg6lqxsavuq@nic.fr>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (OSX 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xQMb6jB81Scp7amFqfWcNLatllk>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 vs. 6303 WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
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: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:40:26 -0000

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xml
>
> It is not complete. For instance, {in-addr,ip6}.arpa domains for the
> documentation networks (e.g. 2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA) are not present
> (but they are in the other registry,
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/locally-served-dns-zones/locally-served-dns-zones.xml>)

That's an interesting observation.  RFC 6761 imported the RFC 1918 zones 
from RFC 6303 section 4.1, but not the other zones from sections 4.2 
through 4.6.  Was that deliberate of an oversight?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly