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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Sat, 25 July 2015 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 F217A1B2CCA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 s01F1FNY9TuZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10EB11B2CAF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.252] (frobbit.cust.teleservice.net [85.30.128.225]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FBF720735; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:03:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:03:32 +0200
Message-ID: <F6A99810-CBB3-46DD-83FE-64507A2D08BD@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1507250154470.74907@ary.lan>
References: <20150724223103.72650.qmail@ary.lan> <C7F9571D-4446-4FC9-BDB3-1AEEAD5B98DF@nominum.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1507242102150.69886@ary.lan> <B419D491-FF05-4C45-9D03-577886BD6A58@frobbit.se> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1507250119350.74632@ary.lan> <78E74FBF-2FDB-42AC-933B-85E39BE4AB14@frobbit.se> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1507250154470.74907@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_4C5B3244-F7E9-458F-8FE9-8A9A66205228_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5107)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Jn3f12dWNJ8yfAYKpLNxcA1SW0s>
Cc: IETF general list <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: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:03:36 -0000

On 25 Jul 2015, at 7:56, John R Levine wrote:

> ICANN excluded the IETF reserved names last time, and it seems certain they would do so next time.  The question is whether we can update that list to be complete enough to be useful, and do so in a timeframe that would keep it useful.  I have my doubts.  More than doubts.

Agree.

   Patrik