IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 04 July 2017 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 92D251325DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 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] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 BIFVUmEzELUc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3761A1325F3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id d78so172606328qkb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pRlYSSgOyURP5PuBxxe9IKT2XRNk5KXildLC8fmDj4Q=; b=tAqTfpShFgFY1AAYAYkp8N9u1JXsMO2TR/5SXiVte9VanIF3xYfmhknluCAaJ1dB1n +3yQ09sc41xKTMIS5UDeazIe2nSh8WcE7JEImYAc0YaeX8yM4tDXMw6IPjUP0FZnlhbE a5DYdVjEEELG75CgzQPSNy18eFGV3/ulEP0jdVa8xMf+JzfCgopD4o20TiJjFd360Iwj EPpFErzRCAThCAVyQ5WrBFf4QzOCBoC2WFVejIoFzabqLK8ZmcYaBw63kUDxVzpcZAVW XHPPO8tbk2u/eWSNJc5ftMn1lQDLXs+dpnMRdaai5YGRXn5XaVNk39sfg1PC8Msv4vUI 2zAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pRlYSSgOyURP5PuBxxe9IKT2XRNk5KXildLC8fmDj4Q=; b=AG88iszG9XiZTDxzjA89nFKMMO1MK3lTcnzTMREgt2AirlIgf0H1w2n5pfWsfSvIe4 JgBPzEpKyzYGNenKZNffnVbFvICnDsE/Daf2qBQPUWkCsxlfPDTMdh1pgbTqsaZkGIUV tagC0d4MaotyvM3Jjfpb9VBt3e1PNsrooiweScK9nRw8lpxDN2CoOK7NJaWwJNMKp5Dy fZabh4D/UXbmoSzwKooOdSvA858yd1OqfpLLGNgHUy3AZRwZoI32c0yKSb8QBVvnehm5 ZqY7zFQKJnW1xXrrecTvurIQqfJVKcqPucfYNi4h+ayMqWNJ7ZY+8BVLkvGIcLVtYR4n sYiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxCy09Sa+jdbT+11/EO7XBNGbZwn1jqHRXVfj7XWRxs/yoihcFe q6VnATtz3ulzPg27
X-Received: by 10.55.71.136 with SMTP id u130mr37057018qka.66.1499189995339; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.114] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 82sm16308392qkz.16.2017.07.04.10.39.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15A5304i)
In-Reply-To: <CACfw2hhx+-Z=7ZnnaOkToc+Bd7aKDpBFt+nFUxkt9sKqLn4D8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:39:53 -0400
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2DF1AFC7-643B-4610-8EB8-0616D3D0B024@fugue.com>
References: <CAHw9_iJQ31wqLavOhtMpPOBhGP4j6CLk45KHGdX5vOA+qj4nQA@mail.gmail.com> <m2a84kzm4y.wl-randy@psg.com> <F98FEA1C-3F3F-4344-8B07-996AAD899CC2@fugue.com> <m2shicxr0h.wl-randy@psg.com> <A70FD34B-000A-4748-B1B2-BF6DF66C7D6C@fugue.com> <m2podgxq97.wl-randy@psg.com> <5F120298-CD66-4CB6-9DC5-0C5DF6F02CC7@fugue.com> <CACfw2hhx+-Z=7ZnnaOkToc+Bd7aKDpBFt+nFUxkt9sKqLn4D8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/C6n2_wk1IjQr1Io2kSMdFddLZc8>
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: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 17:39:58 -0000

On Jul 4, 2017, at 1:32 PM, william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> wrote:
> I find Randys line of discussion mirroring my own thoughts.
> And to answer your question above, technically, the TLD  org.  is a member of the IN class, so in the OF class, it is credible to posit the existence of  a org. TLD.   TLDs are per class... :)

Technically, yes. Would ICANN object?  I’d be astonished if they did not. Is there any practical value in an alternative class hierarchy?  No. So it’s moot.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email