IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)

hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org> Tue, 17 March 2015 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hellekin@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9880C1A890F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 5PAIwYhDNMfC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F71D1A8927 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ol168-138.fibertel.com.ar ([24.232.138.168]:54056 helo=raiz.hellekin.gnu) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hellekin@gnu.org>) id 1YXzPG-00041A-RQ for dnsop@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:52:11 -0400
Message-ID: <5508A1FA.6050108@gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:51:54 -0300
From: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>
Organization: https://gnu.org/consensus
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <55089F07.5020200@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55089F07.5020200@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yYUQDbZNaqfdqsQmBEZMXtbOETI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Mar 2015 21:52:14 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 03/17/15 18:39, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
> the implications of widening use of RFC 6761.
>
*** You certainly mean: the implications of using RFC 6761, given that
so far, it's only been used by its creator, Apple Inc. in RFC 6762 (if
6761 itself is not counted).

"widening use of RFC 6761" sounds to me like its use should be reserved
to some entities over others.  It does not seem fair, and implies that
RFC 6761 cannot be used like any other RFCs.  Did I read something wrong?

==
hk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=MuWM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email