Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Warren Kumari <> Mon, 12 September 2016 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D6B12B14F for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2j4l4bAADG3 for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B4FC12B151 for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w204so158441905qka.0 for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SU7wUrm2WdxzzaGDSZYcFbAZwK0/Rg04WP5S2aRsGC0=; b=0EL+CkywtapN5VwJU8K8DJ7Z5mKb3ZY5elrgihoiB3rOiqCDc1cpVNBV5HJLa5k8wo HR7HKS2YmnkDeB1BmTNMsg3+24HCJAa9RJmdFExvtDG1vifWnKrlA5gh2Cn6C82L64Fu 8IZivkx1imxvNLBUqY8tG01yLaMTckShTtj8UgdRm9BcYRpLniGF8pKTJJQVGclPpgm1 vMICqJyHn2qOiOO3BejpFSFMKtQ2y9mGhHblZ0IcLozVgQQJlb1Jv9WBK5/ZuQMFz+7V 49R0NhSoME7hGbiXMGjHAIYr6v0tl6fR0WmGinhgZyrO3eG3NNx0rH3+1YcPELPVRUd4 D7GA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SU7wUrm2WdxzzaGDSZYcFbAZwK0/Rg04WP5S2aRsGC0=; b=XbTI6j2Drn/R3OdvZBVT5R6Ts38xzpQ/mVwtms9QQeGoOOj/oisSwuL7HAoGFK2qh4 zigbtNxDPmIqdekufpbYeFsSzSWijBSIs9AZt3hAPzURKLFqvzXM705gWkAmM6+Y6M6e TczxNXQ3ipE1DqVmVd8ctjBfRv9zUSb9SZSRHrFMLFeryCsLQqatkLpLeM4CH8MQAKv6 BgH7QAxXe+5f048IjVi/2W5PHuIUDOFoKNXdpjoH2+ArtWcto4OiurdBO0y23zYAUe1z H3uLqkUPNxwydPOQHcM4kzcDwZeGwIi6FrTF8FmXoHDra4/azHaH/rLgvNsUu7Iu7jTb d1KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMxo3sEbPL8kc4ZIyDLSVPuYsELk6Kh6mN8speIdih8Ol7t4gQl6CeQvLeURULS9wWy9z01a0FDanJJBdnz
X-Received: by with SMTP id r69mr22064472qkh.190.1473720191499; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:43:10 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Suzanne Woolf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114774868353df053c5738b1
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:43:15 -0000

On Monday, September 12, 2016, Suzanne Woolf <> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> As we discussed in Berlin, we need to move forward with adopting a problem
> statement draft for further work on special use domain names.
> Issues of usage around the domain name space are part of our charter, and
> the IESG has expressed interest more than once in having a clear basis for
> dealing with future cases such as the request for .onion in the special use
> domain names registry or the needs of the HNCP protocol. The Chairs
> determined that the WG should have a problem statement before attempting to
> specify changes to RFC 6761 or other possible solutions.
> The problem statement needs to be a WG document, with a WG commitment to
> get to consensus on it.
> We have two internet-drafts that have been submitted for discussion as
> problem statements. They’re both individual submissions and the work of
> their named authors. They cover many common features of the landscape but
> they’re also written from slightly different viewpoints. It seems unlikely
> that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask the WG to choose.
> Both drafts have been revised in the last few days.
> The drafts are:
> We’re opening a 2-week discussion period for the WG, to end on Sept. 26.
> At the end of that time we’ll adopt one of these drafts for further work by
> the WG.

Thank you - we are looking forward to any and all comments, and a healthy

Please, I know many are tired of this topic, but it really is important, so
please participate and send in your views.


> Shortly thereafter we will also be soliciting views on how the IETF might
> address the problems we’ve identified with special use domain names.
> Please read these drafts and tell us which you think the WG can adopt as a
> problem statement, from the IETF perspective, about the various issues
> we’ve discussed on special use names. We need your comments on the record—
> being able to demonstrate the WG’s decision process is important— so please
> write to the list.
> Assuming some level of agreement on a problem statement, we’re tentatively
> scheduling an interim WG meeting for next steps, in mid-October.

> thanks all,
> Tim & Suzanne

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of