IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 04 July 2017 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FE9132616; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 6d35VTTAy3FQ; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA879132614; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:dc3:59e3:1fa5:69dc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:dc3:59e3:1fa5:69dc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0F2261FF3; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <595BD53E.60701@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:49:50 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.15 (Windows/20170609)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
References: <CAHw9_iJQ31wqLavOhtMpPOBhGP4j6CLk45KHGdX5vOA+qj4nQA@mail.gmail.com> <m2a84kzm4y.wl-randy@psg.com> <F98FEA1C-3F3F-4344-8B07-996AAD899CC2@fugue.com> <m2shicxr0h.wl-randy@psg.com> <A70FD34B-000A-4748-B1B2-BF6DF66C7D6C@fugue.com> <m2podgxq97.wl-randy@psg.com> <5F120298-CD66-4CB6-9DC5-0C5DF6F02CC7@fugue.com> <CACfw2hhx+-Z=7ZnnaOkToc+Bd7aKDpBFt+nFUxkt9sKqLn4D8Q@mail.gmail.com> <2DF1AFC7-643B-4610-8EB8-0616D3D0B024@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <2DF1AFC7-643B-4610-8EB8-0616D3D0B024@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/g9oK0_VBKGdDCM8uLqyKwn8_yhY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 17:49:56 -0000


Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 1:32 PM, william
> manning<chinese.apricot@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I find Randys line of discussion mirroring my own thoughts. And to
>> answer your question above, technically, the TLD  org.  is a member
>> of the IN class, so in the OF class, it is credible to posit the
>> existence of  a org. TLD.   TLDs are per class... :)
>
> Technically, yes. Would ICANN object?  I’d be astonished if they did
> not. Is there any practical value in an alternative class hierarchy?
> No. So it’s moot.

while IETF governs the protocol, ICANN only governs the IN class. i 
expect that there will be other classes some day, in order to avoid some 
aspect of ICANN. but this is not that.

-- 
P Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email