IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 25 July 2015 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 C8FC71A893E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qKL8UFHeU0y0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D19601A87A2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 76654 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2015 05:56:54 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=12b6d.55b32526.k1507; bh=luksV4hmOzoekJMXiyG3DiGa+IIWC772F7eiwd8N1j0=; b=qpGCsuXS2pnRv9pB2cD8CTy29vKlzChpeomz0ww0HhxfLVOOnpQvO2U/KQf0POJhBqFF96Z/VRvu8Sb+2hheSBq8cg6wmKz8GStjGzVZL8EK+9+mZVytjYcfTgH5Ezgor+i8VDlj4G2EsKTF5WIBrDbji2Ze3pgx35fAaTK8ZsFTTuOotVdKFV3bqzVUnJaxp+6PVMfPCsiUldWM53eEWUPJW5UQ6HkXe860pMS9IQqoBQ/VR8Ldozsu+vP6G74m
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=12b6d.55b32526.k1507; bh=luksV4hmOzoekJMXiyG3DiGa+IIWC772F7eiwd8N1j0=; b=fLLIe+J6EltU4r+cdDxNOnsTLO79cKM47Jwdu4kWnJ5ZdHSwXkgRdyWZdyXko7Yv1JaNpL/ZpPGG/2al4x4pg1DHYEPw4ho9PLiwTFAXMtoip8f8OVDxi5nbSM7ugbkxVg6BHEVCciQs5yoBs3lVZ2zc+gaAe7acEfRuJ6F4Dg7bM/Px2pS6bG5dtw0sz0M1JYMu4Z55hWJYUyxm1/Zdhwq3acXOb7ujsRViSBHdW/c7w3YIxs+Cak4chtswaLMf
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 25 Jul 2015 05:56:54 -0000
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 01:56:37 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1507250154470.74907@ary.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
In-Reply-To: <78E74FBF-2FDB-42AC-933B-85E39BE4AB14@frobbit.se>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Y6CuvKVtnSuwGREJ4kMH29VxEbA>
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 05:56:39 -0000

> IF IETF would have a list of domain names not suitable for being TLDs (which it has, but you understand what I mean, I strongly would encourage ICANN to point at that list by IETF when ICANN create this list of theirs, at least for the bootstrap, or maybe even the IETF list would be that black list. But now I know I discuss ICANN PDP here and not IETF, but unfortunately the two are intertwined.

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.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email