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 04:59 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 6B1AA1B2B0E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 JutzDkGQf_Q0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23EC81B2B05 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.252] (frobbit.cust.teleservice.net [85.30.128.225]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 750F4202FE; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:59:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: John 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 06:59:11 +0200
Message-ID: <1FCF35B1-37A1-459B-B6B9-5F949E237386@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20150724223103.72650.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20150724223103.72650.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_DF1179C7-2475-48D2-93A1-E2490595283D_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5107)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_geYDSShYxeD0avKx8akKL4Wmjk>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, lear@cisco.com
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 04:59:15 -0000

On 25 Jul 2015, at 0:31, John Levine wrote:

> For example, there is a lot of old
> CPE that leaks queries for .BELKIN.  But maybe if a TLD application
> were from the same company that made the leaky devices, that would be
> OK.

Related to this, .BELKIN is a special case where whoever makes a judgement can base the judgement on SAC-045. If this is what you are saying, then I claim you say that "the basis for a 'no' is some report from someone else [who?] that say something is different from something else", or?

   Patrik