IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Fri, 24 July 2015 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACC51B2FA7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 DoOMgbecL-k7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) (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 D97731B2F90 for <IETF@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so15764049wib.0 for <IETF@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=NN6kPr45p0kalkxbW8LvxaUWTKagLR7lOnYRtAMDooQ=; b=Q5DmOTlAJjxszK9znlQJ+6EPJa22/y2C1NjlRY7sHG3JFQxdNyEnkv2eIj0HXnEWeo afh+hmzwzSPzrAubXoJTimTn5WDBfeOc9m8cITDZ1JO7ulOf7NaaeMLv2auSNP39IMUI Xk7MOIXmWQlc1OmyFlNcMdPMOKmuyDd31I5+/Z+IMWItkAj5mpFjEBXx2EaxxWL1HBcR fcMpVcZURS60rmpY7YRgrXrzzLviFnUzMl5DjA2ske59glzHLZcWIrLipQ3/M2+q80vp 9rViAnSkn59oe0GUKF788jCvUUcZjq+9ilYHsSki4MWdjDKlMb7gk8KE789TZWskVBS+ IN1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYPSf/yv7tzrUWiPdvx2GDi0vY+hzKJt1YykiDzb/p++hNeqKyhMgvb4wPMqvsyDC1e31q
X-Received: by 10.180.103.42 with SMTP id ft10mr4449255wib.43.1437722467620; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:176:dc3b:a388:d733:add2? ([2001:67c:370:176:dc3b:a388:d733:add2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id uo6sm2580878wjc.1.2015.07.24.00.21.05 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E5E2F6A6-3330-436A-B2A9-3885F6734107"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <F8B1240553F1ED877E42F66D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:21:03 +0200
Message-Id: <5A72A128-78D0-47A5-A962-5DB39E84E640@virtualized.org>
References: <20150720192219.53802.qmail@ary.lan> <55ADF2A7.3080403@cisco.com> <A0418F96-1D79-4BE9-A72A-7A47641E4AF3@gmail.com> <CAKr6gn1apWx2M7V-O6ea2kvor7Di6=jYMh-uY2ouTsgjkV6vLw@mail.gmail.com> <20150722084204.GA15378@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAKr6gn2413-2XW8d_stw0dTmP-KsmGgFgQ3tVXEgXrXmnCiQow@mail.gmail.com> <6E97605B-C11E-4349-90FC-109E4983112C@istaff.org> <45F6578D-BA19-4333-8935-C954BBD9AEE8@nominum.com> <F8B1240553F1ED877E42F66D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IOHdzhHZnr3EJ5Bo01GiRMOyICU>
Cc: ietf <IETF@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:21:14 -0000

Hi,

On Jul 24, 2015, at 12:15 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>> Ideally, ICANN ought to give IETF an opportunity to say "no, don't allocate that name"
> I hesitate to think about what would
> happen if we said "no", but assume it would involve
> organizations trying to get their $300-$400K (each) back and
> lawyers.

Yep. In addition, it would probably result in the non-trivial political and economic forces endemic to ICANN interested in blocking a name (for whatever reason) redirecting their energies to the IESG (or whoever the IETF decides "we" are). After all, if they can't legitimately block a name through the ICANN processes, they'd get one last bite at the apple at the IETF.

I'm guessing this probably isn't what folks in the IETF would want.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email