Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

John C Klensin <> Mon, 07 July 2008 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3403A6B17; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE1328C28F for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.342
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-dusPsehRcX for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9416C3A69D6 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KFzKk-000Dhj-T6; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:37:23 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:37:22 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Karl Auerbach <>,
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <64678EAE7EC685E31B6A042F@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: Your message of <> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <> <> <18BA25DED8BFD9F794A10E84@p3.JCK.COM> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 15:03 -0700 Karl Auerbach
<> wrote:

> I guess you've heard the old joke which asks "How could God
> create the world in only seven days? - Because He had no
> installed base."

yes.  But six.  He could then rest, rather than dealing with
irate users.

> If we move this thread up one level of abstraction much of the
> conversation is asking the question of how strongly we respect
> the installed base of software out there on the net.
> Do we have any principles we can use to guide our choice of
> where we put the needle along the continuum from "no change,
> no way" to "any and every change is allowed"?

Apropos to your opening comment, it is probably ultimately a
matter of religion.   And mine, FWIW, it that, in cases where it
is hard or impossible to prove that their will be no ill-effects
on that portion of the installed base that conforms to existing
standards, I'm inclined to argue for a very high level of
demonstration that there are no ways to do whatever is wanted
within the existing models.   Such demonstrations may be
persuasive that problems that may be lying in wait for us are
worth the risks.   In their absence, it is hard for me
--religiously or pragmatically-- to accept the view that
possibly-significant risks are worth it.

I note that, because of the caching issue as well as several
others, I have never found the position that "we know that COM
could be expanded well beyond original design expectations,
therefore the root can be" particularly persuasive.

Of course, if one is unpersuaded by the potential for risks to
the installed base, then one would position oneself to try to
get those who are concerned about those risks to prove that they


Ietf mailing list