IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sat, 01 November 2014 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7672B1A87EB for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 CS9IBohARxTH for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87E341A87E9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1457; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414819688; x=1416029288; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=TjDMtF/0TGQak5A68iQ1XWC3hQy9hjaxG8N/YJwuPjg=; b=XIJ9CLdIwDK7oXD89QxLtqUSVgZGqke0IXEqO7Qgf3RxrrNZtecNJ6ww uNJqhaRKY0KY1TYUeA8DB19Dch+Pcho69UYAhjLXiflz17v0cKHMzJg0T fIJDDdVAsHMmJ7y2WFJY+xKO77pek6qBopHglIDuZh8vu5Aan83hCpm1I A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqYEAPtuVFStJssW/2dsb2JhbABc2T8CgSsBAQEBAX2EAwEBBCNVARALDgoJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiD21GJRkAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5EQB4J3gVQBBJQtgVKHfoExhkOKUIQJg3k8gnoBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,295,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="232632214"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2014 05:28:06 +0000
Received: from [10.61.174.26] ([10.61.174.26]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA15S3oD015711; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 05:28:06 GMT
Message-ID: <54546F63.1060708@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:28:03 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> <54047E4A.30503@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140901094544.0b305698@resistor.net> <54059587.8070608@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20141024004255.0b5ef5d8@resistor.net> <4C1255B9-68C3-45D5-A618-2C7553386DF4@gmail.com> <54522E43.5020709@acm.org> <545428AC.3090802@gmail.com> <7471A339-3938-4D65-81ED-9E27A80EC32B@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <7471A339-3938-4D65-81ED-9E27A80EC32B@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lroTcPAcHFCkR3Gdems8ffqeJKSQt7RRe"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/vb0_vUOaFy1Y5qfClNdEoIl5uZQ
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 05:28:10 -0000

On 11/1/14, 3:15 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> RFC 6761 allows for the preemption of _any_ top-level domain name.
> This would appear to go beyond "technical uses" and get into policy
> issues regardless of how "technical uses" might be reasonably defined
> or who does the defining. 

Is there a specific example that you believe goes beyond technical use? 
Also, we have processes to revise 6761 if that is what is necessary, the
same ones, in fact that were used to create it in the first place.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email