Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

George Michaelson <> Tue, 04 April 2017 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01D01293EB for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 O-RDlEYuroIc for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 311BF129503 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r69so160674479vke.2 for <>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:47:50 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qQRGA5YqeGdBXz4HVo9ZmFQZKfPNJItFI6n82qdUpLQ=; b=VXqNyCxZwG51ZhQEOJaAl6t0xi5hosLULhMYi7OQ6fRqxuy0UwLyB8m35/940BOsfZ q4EpuU3hLDT2jFnmVu5WJjDvqFhop52VvXqZ2DDpeS0QhE3KDJd5E8h7znTXcSsw5v52 lyfZeTriEcrLEyrI2MjPgVBo4f45oq1LJLvg207NvmzcY03FpXEGSEG4LKlW6rX8LA+k TEbfA6dE3Vq589x35RDs+6EGGLz0dJNlmVpwnx3GmiEqjLyW05Lc2Uz/6XVXZxiN7R2e 0S1Wj5aFW0Ey5V/4Jc7cYLNrpVOt1OIxkkUpZsFLDAf+6NsxLJcKcer+6pMtDT+99Yut y4+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qQRGA5YqeGdBXz4HVo9ZmFQZKfPNJItFI6n82qdUpLQ=; b=kpR/Sz5cuykGO7jPtJt2PxCF6gaRtpVQC65mtC05Q0dWCVZlNfJ4zH8H8VwQyNViom m94+fQMDypu37E8tq34nNl4JVWxZ/cMSSbTlwchnXHtaom0GygL1fMujy8guCoxEswby dHl7ePIGXSiJjpnQdJiaZTZ3LpGFnOWTRHtQT2S0psV8vyApc7FaDxg100IAQkHiIMNh Gmn1Z0dJHq5iYn3FlkoLBRfMNTW+Wou5jiaSQuE8WClDW0IJbNl6T2+cvlfYvg88BCXe pv9cpmMUApG+a35K1ljxFSc0nad//0rSdgflkBsQ5BwnG5NYk5W2DTb1J1MMW0R8fFu5 JaIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2Hl1izdiyTuQlJoLBTD5wzz4Lv+34skBkoVw8O0b7qXfUTq153Sc6J+iOpYxEM4WOsg4FbVbyK9bjKFQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p19mr8955778uaa.35.1491274069277; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:465:201f:394f:6f28]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:47:48 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Suzanne Woolf <>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>, dnsop <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 02:47:53 -0000

I could take it either way. narrow doc is narrow purpose? don't ref it.

doc is highly visible, will be (mis)interpreted as being relevant?
disavow it (which implies ref it)

doc is highly visible, problem next door? Seek guidance.


On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Suzanne Woolf <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On one specific point:
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:02 PM, George Michaelson <> wrote:
>> Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that
>> any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why
>> this draft is special, against that letter.  You make a compelling and
>> simple case: because its specifically NOT-DNS, not public DNS, its not
>> relevant. Ok, then say so. 'we didn't say so because it wasn't
>> relevant' feels pretty weak to me.
> I’m fine with “the draft needs to be updated with reference to the relevance of .arpa” as a WGLC comment, so the below is intended as contributing to the discussion, not repressing it.
> On the intentions and role of the IAB:
> An IAB statement isn’t an IETF document of any kind, never mind a standards track document, and can’t tell the IETF what to do— including this WG.  So the IAB certainly can’t say “We don’t do that any more” as a policy statement about an IETF registry such as the special use names registry. However, RFC 3172 is an IETF BCP, and provides direction to the IETF and the IAB (as admin authority for .arpa) on the requirements that should be followed for a delegation in .arpa. So as a WGLC comment, this suggests the addition of a reference to RFC 3172 and the applicability of the .arpa policy there to the justification for alt.
> It’s my view that, as Paul says, the IAB note was written about a different case than the alt-tld draft was: the IAB was attempting to point out an alternative to asking for a delegation in the root zone in the case that a special use name is supposed to be resolvable in the DNS. The alt-tld draft is about names that aren’t intended to be resolvable in the DNS in the first place.
> However, since I was a contributor to the IAB document, it puts me in an awkward position to be interpreting it for DNSOP on behalf of the IAB. If further clarification on the IAB statement would be useful, we should explicitly request it.
> best,
> Suzanne
>> I can do this as a nit in the GIT if you prefer.
>> -G
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:
>>> On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote:
>>>> isn't this OBE and it's now?
>>> No.
>>>> Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed
>>>> without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case.
>>> Are you saying that because of:
>>> If so, I suspect you read it wrong. My reading is that the IAB is only
>>> saying that names that are supposed to act like DNS names (that is, to exist
>>> in the public DNS) need to be under .arpa. This draft explicitly is about
>>> non-DNS contexts.
>>> --Paul Hoffman
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list