Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 9F79C131D8A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=DIjK9i1J; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=AXteJXqV
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 XTBhDhz_buHb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D577C131D4F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20587 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2017 17:29:39 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5068.595d2203.k1707; bh=606xQ5tP06oN79BLFB8ZDvUd5VlwLhNEup7GmXquliM=; b=DIjK9i1J4MEZvOF0RdKpuSkt08pZ9Sp5gR2u3krcE1vaV4dlybFJiANJXg9vq6tnUzPvE86zrRaXm+zCoG9pYAfw+aeiZwaB53b1SZe9y0Dog2mqWE0Dkj/nNJfdctmTX+VBlq91XIaQShOWk+/HK7lKa5mItkp3bE2sWddQbEjdoi7giJ96DFpviwXe1F/5MjCzdffXahm46C8EtSb3+ykj3QdYgxjzfWKUgTEIAxj4k/kizptgj4SJDfq401+O
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5068.595d2203.k1707; bh=606xQ5tP06oN79BLFB8ZDvUd5VlwLhNEup7GmXquliM=; b=AXteJXqVJnkfj/2nP4CGUQFeOwAkCG0pn2INf6g2VkcZDW+6erIMyADZtZH5eZNmld2xSjAvkncvq5fQq3qgKY7cAXC+tIG3G+UEhsQU6P5xUZTxuFXQNKuIkOrTUhuPGwa4JeqTxZYBEoKjNpyh6wvMNgZEFtdCweve6PTElz1Q0xLf4bfY4BL1b8WCFAb4xecS8o/M+WMJ353wEwMcnG86LzSYmTmvQWvgEyBFctbeEl1/3KikX1+UZ5TWPEtg
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 05 Jul 2017 17:29:39 -0000
Date: 5 Jul 2017 13:29:39 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1707051328530.86608@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Ted Lemon" <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: "IETF general list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
In-Reply-To: <965D02EE-48D0-45CF-80EE-70A97C5C330D@fugue.com>
References: <20170704170910.66459.qmail@ary.lan> <965D02EE-48D0-45CF-80EE-70A97C5C330D@fugue.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1275218499-1499275779=:86608"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1YXVPcVBxmY_bP9Kfcvhgf8HQio>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <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: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 17:29:44 -0000

> I don't mean to open a discussion into that topic here—I realize that there is no consensus on it, and that this position is not shared by various people, yourself included.   I just want to point out that you've expressed it as universally true that people think special-use names are bad, and that is not in fact the case: if it were, we wouldn't need to publish this document.

I didn't say they're bad, I said they're a problem which is not the same 
thing.

It really isn't helpful to rephrase other people's statements and get them 
wrong, particularly when everyone can just read the original.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly