Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Mon, 12 September 2016 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 F3D6B12B14F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 u2j4l4bAADG3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B4FC12B151 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id w204so158441905qka.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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 10.55.43.72 with SMTP id r69mr22064472qkh.190.1473720191499; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.147.196 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D60BBDEF-3C13-44CB-A0D9-DEA98F5297F5@gmail.com>
References: <D60BBDEF-3C13-44CB-A0D9-DEA98F5297F5@gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:43:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJ3GZWqfuMmxxaKf6s0bTszBqLVJr8tmzhVHgLSd+7BYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114774868353df053c5738b1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xoevBofMX2grWgM8TMPcriDn8og>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:43:15 -0000

On Monday, September 12, 2016, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/
>
> 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
debate...

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

W



>
>
> 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
pants.
   ---maf