Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

Alain Durand <alain.durand@icann.org> Tue, 27 September 2016 20:13 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 8889512B37F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Dgw9r91kRZf2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4DF12B2A0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:13:31 -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 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:13:29 -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; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:13:29 -0700
From: Alain Durand <alain.durand@icann.org>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSDOzZ6wM4/oQTDkWXqskn6xMCdqCLBXOAgAImLQCAAGNmAIAAA2OAgABfDgCAADn/gIAADNIAgAAabwA=
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:13:29 +0000
Message-ID: <C52115F7-DF8A-4205-8195-FBABD16A213E@icann.org>
References: <147368142586.14471.16897934069436083953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6ce7ea83-5ccc-aeda-d1e4-f5e5d1ccbf53@gnu.org> <CAHw9_iKtmVh8xvwVydWUs-g9t_JiKAF7Frdx_iieSEOvQFHJ1w@mail.gmail.com> <f33a6d06-2c17-04fd-d6a7-b73274705c37@gnu.org> <74610049-16f1-3210-7f79-8d38d596d641@bellis.me.uk> <05DF06B8-AB92-4DD9-B868-1D420FA33692@rfc1035.com> <CAHw9_iLGhDXsfPGNb0igLAdMHBbR+giFw067oEReD7Ww84Je-Q@mail.gmail.com> <8F7C438C-37EA-4C99-96D9-F4B59AFF40B7@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <8F7C438C-37EA-4C99-96D9-F4B59AFF40B7@rfc1035.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_49212390-1B6A-4BC6-AA82-5C78B9FD1A03"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xj0Q9uxIfFeiYgXMwZ4laevjpuE>
Cc: IETF dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Moronic MUA Header Mangling <draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names@tools.ietf.org>, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt
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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:13:33 -0000

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> They both come up short as problem statements IMO. I’m struggling to find words to succinctly describe what problem the WG is expected to solve - sorry about that -- since it appears to be a layer 9+ matter. Both drafts seem to be concerned with treating (some of?) the symptoms rather than the root cause(s). Excuse the pun.

Jim,

When we tried to frame this as L9 issues, the overwhelming wg feedback was: keep it technical. So we did, and now people realize there is an elephant in the room.
We don’t appear to converge here, and maybe we can’t. See the email Ed Lewis sent a few days ago...

Alain.