IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfc6761bis] New Non-WG Mailing List: rfc6761bis

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Tue, 13 December 2022 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B862FC1516F9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 04:27:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NWP6fakwioJX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 04:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-4018.proton.ch (mail-4018.proton.ch [185.70.40.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD03C151704 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 04:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 12:27:12 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=protonmail; t=1670934437; x=1671193637; bh=ow2cI95O6zxEzWlRHu5NMXGJHZYdGfN2mjAmtR/THUg=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=hNmQVRFdenVeQTs9Ee8kifSMLd4qx8UsRdCRxciDJsWdq/F8XAHk6zqbQ+eT4uCvT Fg3iskF6KgsEHd7nF1yEmcvMZAWX4B3gKj50smXcQaWXl7+lNwCdMP3FFKg1oMUh8D V1HPdGcB9vaaMXlTFgwfRgFc31aKm/8aRO7D7hC3HEI2URfBANCjYpU9uAuLoMrz4o tA8CZfPf2Fuf53KkSz4wX2IPQP4gominu3hVVPjPgAJ5/QYMtwVvXqXm+haDNmlwX4 oncUZ3reobePiOnyIGbrBKy3oO/W6M6/nXgHoAG8tWYFec4DYpO1tq1VQdm9c/i2dk 48SiCxBnm4XdA==
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, paul@nohats.ca, rfc6761bis@ietfa.amsl.com, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rfc6761bis] New Non-WG Mailing List: rfc6761bis
Message-ID: <1ZCcsM481U5jAWWR76ShTniZBa3MYsGI05xpsyddCAXXq-AHEKkKIAoHIzkh2cbp5y98N07Rr54PzK2Bj8TQ6L82HT6-8XNseWN5QqBIo8A=@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <6896EE30-67DE-47FD-826C-52108AA9B1EA@gmail.com>
References: <167043280754.32746.12505647641634366352@ietfa.amsl.com> <26586.1670443013@localhost> <6896EE30-67DE-47FD-826C-52108AA9B1EA@gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 62430589:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1-u-hhGeVOX7qlSKBcKA_PzDS7Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 12:27:25 -0000

Hi Ralph,

On Monday, December 12th, 2022 at 16:35, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a reminder: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8244
> 
> Dunno where the conversation has gone since publication of RFC8244

8244 opens with the premise that ICANN and IETF have nominal control over the "domain namespace" -- e.g. 8244's problems 1 through 4. "Domain namespace" is defined as "the set of all possible domain names."

I think neither ICANN nor the IETF have or should have control over the domain namespace; they only have control over that subset of the domain namespace that is used by IETF protocols like the DNS.

There is a point, I believe, at which the IETF should step aside and avoid trying to nanny the designers of other parts of the namespace. Many (maybe most) of the problems identified in 8244 are consequences of not acknowleding such a threshold of care.

I do agree that narrative around all of this suffers a discontinuity if the points described in 8244 aren't carefully considered as part of any new proposal to scope the limits of the IETF's responsibility.


Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email