IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> Tue, 04 July 2017 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <chinese.apricot@gmail.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 3DB671319B0; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 azdrRrwCM5fS; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 D50551325B2; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id h64so74502921iod.0; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u9R+FPH+CbDy52TpOQuT4IozacrJVOeMrm+FLvBugsM=; b=pYgYMR7wQk26OgfH6EKW3nOCUd3XD56ARmik5E4huIS38A/YiWrFnL5d2XSkNRjq5I 41T50wQnGE3aedzTMRCyXPaCYgO41ySLBoSskapP2La+FGFMWqu0DVsJkg5wTDnSNyEC 8Z/5CJhcO2GpxBfLWSmNvRNVzYsnmDY7MyzFIAHwvGP3Kc9a5AOc3+n/xlO619JWwvs7 hmLOORnGNGUaIJ25w4I0ajJbXQTSFcmvv1RC8cVhWkaveTSnjfzeincl4DONfnh+ntiU yF3W3jtuWS096rACyICoia+Y+rEBlrhafSoYqN5I4jCb9pQ09azEET8BUPqKXOxHtEQg Yq2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u9R+FPH+CbDy52TpOQuT4IozacrJVOeMrm+FLvBugsM=; b=Q6oJe7Pncg6mrsjJjnjfWUEzox1BEk4vHgxXuqaZzzLAF4tDVG/a4lDTGYmY4v04W2 C3DaD4kI0AR2mMWEGy0SNLIV9QOXbdVwCb7h8Aunkv2OtxLEVYAq7XYD37/WHspEuG9f DHLOPyIFTLRjNQQpLdfEZJjZ/+O9LYzZubXJuw4yetRLsiwZg7u/qhskTReWDtE7MJRq K4jzbi4rLPa6/0sWpG50ojOnYBLO97wJtzoNYeMrSTzclzYI45bCPyEa15igHUQwP61c DRmIBMJ7SzU04Qz/hgx2rogxFtLE1/gJag2weRwlaQOUwAvrdkd3Mq5aBsYyrmLOA3GG 1xQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwpbeHeWj3JabBn/sHexa4zqFItuLW7iO+gbaEv11OeK/zZqYMO gZcDh7sE321Qxrru0kiTPuVdTDWAXw==
X-Received: by 10.107.184.8 with SMTP id i8mr40003825iof.153.1499189579236; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.18.170 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5F120298-CD66-4CB6-9DC5-0C5DF6F02CC7@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>
From: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:32:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CACfw2hhx+-Z=7ZnnaOkToc+Bd7aKDpBFt+nFUxkt9sKqLn4D8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07712a525b2f05538146c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/E5uezC9uvIJMEIbzT2ZWmSZqd7g>
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 17:33:02 -0000

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... :)

/Wm

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That sounds like a solution, not a motivation. That is, you care about the
> problem hypothetically, and have a hypothetical solution. In practice when
> we’ve talked about using dns classes to solve problems that have motivated
> rfc6761 allocations, it hasn’t really helped, because the infrastructure
> required to use them this way is not present, and this isn’t how they were
> originally intended to be used.
>
> For example, is ICANN.org with a different class not a subdomain of the
> .org TLD? Would ICANN not object to us designating it for use by someone
> else?  I suspect yes, and I wouldn’t blame them.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email