Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Randy Bush <> Tue, 04 July 2017 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B02131490; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MAustTeXrJ3c; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 854B013148B; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1dSOGa-0000kc-Pe; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:53:24 +0000
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 15:53:24 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Warren Kumari <>,, IETF Rinse Repeat <>
Subject: Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:53:28 -0000

>> how depressing.  one obvious curiousity is who asked the one-sided
>> question?  otoh, maybe i don't want to know.  but i wish you had
>> perceived a wider responsibility to the community.
> It was discussed at length in the working group, so I would say that
> you could In principle have raised this concern sooner.  However, I
> will admit that it didn’t occur to me to do so either. In any case, it
> really is a separate issue from that covered by this draft, and so
> there’s no reason why we can’t do this work if you think it’s worth
> doing. Given the situation with ICANN and GTLD, it may be moot, but I
> wouldn’t mind writing it down.

we really should not cover our eyes when we send in the assassins.

i would offer to put my keyboard where my mouth is.  but i fear that, at
the bottom, i would have the unreasonable desire for dns classes to
support these kinds of things.  i.e. i don't think we have a clean fix.
but it would be nice to document the good with the bad.