Re: [DNSOP] [art] draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 10 August 2017 05:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 416C413254F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 22:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=ZFI2D2Ky; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=URfXtXuW
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 7chcSRrI6XFR for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 22:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FB3C13254E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 22:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3254BF590 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:24:44 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1502342684; bh=eF2LaKx4xjQso+Tgg5T459YZxXs+arJ4ni2OkbPzow4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZFI2D2KyJI3miirk/8et6l7CThI2TpiuNNT7vcVu4cOBkCXh2WdfIHQWrpd0HC5Bd J29I0SNykR9CqBYQX3IM20T/6lS2VuWfGcvViah7SihWQwtg0IztRYcyzmt93bN23u 4dpJUjns+H5bHVLq2lv4TX7mHz3qwTuPfqNXnblo=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTA2Tjmy7d1e for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:24:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 01:24:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1502342683; bh=eF2LaKx4xjQso+Tgg5T459YZxXs+arJ4ni2OkbPzow4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=URfXtXuWFf8a70Yhj+/9oXtzoQzJSdppSe+82JzLp7zZbsaFa3CQxd31Rrvi4u0DX sFpU+DVYALe06yB0uWo1dmejuXHq0sSk5U1qzBBFxFAeI91RsXZoOjkg/6PQJg+DOU a8jcu7qXQORJyGr8s80scPpp13/5VuX7AYt5qU1c=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170810052443.ltfr4mjskwvwvg3q@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <CADyWQ+HiVOz1zrhNeEYnzy4hryrhFu+v5GNWqcXdOqQBeB9Cig@mail.gmail.com> <9fc7ff7d-9f5a-ce2b-9fb1-e9b1c9eb0108@nostrum.com> <94641677-d072-3462-1c72-ab203c553eef@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <94641677-d072-3462-1c72-ab203c553eef@dcrocker.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yTaVJgteye_6Gnif2DLj6GFH5zI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 10 Aug 2017 05:25:17 -0000

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:36:24PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

> deal with that fully, in a single spec produced an especially confused
> draft, roughly 10 years ago.

I _think_ I may be one of the people who complained at the time, and
if I recall correctly what Dave and I agreed about (maybe the only
thing) was that this was all a terrible mess that needed repair.  At
the time, I was still too much in thrall to data-theoretic approaches
to give in on Dave's pragmatic answer.  And I now see that Dave has
actually described better than I was ever able my objection:

> I've come to the conclusion that "accommodating" the established
> registration practices is a fundamentally wrong path.  The only way to solve
> a problem of multiple registration authorities is to create a single
> registration authority.

Yes.

>    1. Have this document define the simple, sole, authoritative mechanism
> for registering "top-level" (global scope) underscore names.
> 
>    2. Create a separate document that specifies modifications to the SRV and
> URI documents, rationalizing the use of underscore names, through the
> mechanism defined in -attrleaf-.

I like this approach.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com