Re: new DNS classes or anything else

George Michaelson <> Wed, 05 July 2017 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE5E126B71 for <>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PGpZtjwvE5WF for <>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 992CE120227 for <>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y70so117217690vky.3 for <>; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 18:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Xz4QFjffdFUWoAn9o6OvSLyWSshoMQ34XA7QJdwrO3w=; b=zqe2G+6srWpXzDMxyvClrkppaLwoeKcNum5dz38A88/d2BzoXRXypHWoTSCNqcaet8 D3S+LC+qcDjVLNRAti1O4XCx3fmION6SoF5SS+glNbBVMwUd/WvOAkXTD3Zo5EZLM38s Blk16HhuUjzhkPkCneam3PgNfc7HAbRlaMNOLsXuvRRFmCRaL7mKKmud/7CrN0RgRylf n9fPlehUoQPg0RnGmnDI1U0NV7HhD5Kpn2sIzVihwX7mS8EANfUupwZCYn1Me2LVIR3E +k4pYwytaRp/fRq8aCJBVDQWmhajs+HaroA6UxXAyUxhWYVhSrWfHMklTPFrwy5huX46 A5hg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Xz4QFjffdFUWoAn9o6OvSLyWSshoMQ34XA7QJdwrO3w=; b=EtiQ6wnXaXN3CmGSHbwMJrEgP7L+v1gs+42CNhSooO8ed6bYy1QjGSHrQHDt55IzvI WFyAD1BWFQzJvcfS+cY5uFu6sdVb2ftJVkTQRzHkhOt/BSn0wHvdhcGxTwC5AV5IHhNr 1GWEu7XDpSk+W5JLVCKYrEBT2V48KYSzitmKxUkcUpmzOZuNx754kg46Tgym13srO57G J6mQ+t4Q/rVh6m8L1egQQA3qhfCDRi5LGtisTPjgpwr46I7fhx2x5g50xwhWJyemBDSb EyueJiKE5hzFiMmY7kMowkjIslZbdK0/QpvmKqc0TTqgQwqiHm51KC/qKC1RY59yykdo aDQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110LgEBvHsk9u+jav0PfnAsy6XZ3s7TpxLvFleo1Ss3HnlLbkh2O sY+q9wD0qNqDk6zP3BfPosNX11+902s8
X-Received: by with SMTP id c4mr9636770vka.12.1499219230686; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 18:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <20170705013931.67812.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <> <20170705013931.67812.qmail@ary.lan>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:47:10 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: new DNS classes or anything else
To: John Levine <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 01:47:14 -0000

some people have said to me that "put it in the DNS" was funny until
DNSSEC was cooked, at which point it becomes the giant
single-point-of-failure we all depend on, to provide a single unitary
TA over attested things, testable.

it's possible the unitary namespace value is now more about "I can
prove <x>" than its about the simple unique label question.


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:39 AM, John Levine <> wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>>Having enough of the world get aggravated enough at ICANN (or
>>some other entity of one's choice) to make general adoption of
>>an alternate root plausible is another matter and I don't think
>>we are there, at least yet.
> Here in the IETF we are so close to ICANN that we suffer from sample
> bias.  To the extent the outside world is even aware of ICANN, they
> see that .com, .org, .net, and the large ccTLDs all work, registering
> in them is straightforward and not too expensive, and everything else
> is noise.  One advantage of ICANN's turgid bureaucratic processes is
> that it makes it unlikely that they will do anything seriously
> destructive because it would be too hard.
> We all know how to run our own roots if that's what we want to do, but
> I continue to observe approximately none of us doing it.
> R's,
> John