IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 04 July 2017 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 8FC9513160C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 07:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Uo0zHLtOrsm2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 07:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFF8E129459 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 07:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id b40so57529836qtb.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 07:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qqDIJrAAbRttRwWVLjKPD1QDEqnQh818CMDMsLr+Gfk=; b=xd21q5juZyMUWYfs3J+eyvvOo2Y0WfZG4Q4ujCC2voJPJ46ir7g8IOjh6AfTRcqTQh hpdmR44kbXBpCMHckDU6NDTEoU47u9tr2ILzbedSuY+/eMpWa1GPCofdFoph9w353x+5 7mBn1LJZbz+Il5XyLEreTCyY1zpGOkUsQpeZ6LQOCAIyCSuiDe9GDoaxdW+VHutBZQBD 60pIovL58crfICwToujpmnOnAfLm5n4npuK4yfMtNuiG7h8rDZEXSGoZ3UBrjwq1wTMa ziL3lvCDGBCt2DbG6lCdh+wqcrCuy2BthPW7/2RBq2cgHdxr8FpyR1TtL+F/QLtSkg7z oOZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qqDIJrAAbRttRwWVLjKPD1QDEqnQh818CMDMsLr+Gfk=; b=aUfNH2JGwibxsQEKZpdyADSTrEqTAdtasAq0RuwZOMKZgh9i8UqxikhvNjQlu5e9gL Ya20hFinLvjuMv8okV8KfBo2EHSr1savyyfzBn9aTkC+pAKRsaydEo1E/CwLe4O4bWBs HF9Z2XIDa7M2Tn1/P0mcpDfdhr/XuuBopp7mHZOfPnXGwSPCOqyzwulnIMFGvSekAYrL DqeVmAtW+xFVupDJkpr+zyhMsN+8/D5ekA3G92vBxgBRtG2BeNDb2A48dPP4iIjvvnaz wsTgEdCNiWb6w7zlgEcAON+dsevrHT8Ljs0UkyqX/i8sF7xNfRbJAzXZt0GxFf1Vrky8 ba2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwJMC2xGeb6SPAoehZb7L/wvcCYuUQOTgW5Neesr4urpISTK11w bIHicdJLPDQjI0E1sMqTmA==
X-Received: by 10.200.53.11 with SMTP id y11mr46176003qtb.98.1499176883861; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.114] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a6sm14737541qtc.54.2017.07.04.07.01.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jul 2017 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15A5304i)
In-Reply-To: <m2podgxq97.wl-randy@psg.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:01:21 -0400
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, dnsop@ietf.org, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F120298-CD66-4CB6-9DC5-0C5DF6F02CC7@fugue.com>
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>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l_X74DDmFp_mI9TjqoZrqVhXgZo>
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 14:01:27 -0000

On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> i would offer to put my keyboard where my mouth is.  but i fear that, at
> the bottom, i would have the unreasonable desire for dns classes to
> support these kinds of things.  i.e. i don't think we have a clean fix.
> but it would be nice to document the good with the bad.

That sounds like a solution, not a motivation. That is, you care about the problem hypothetically, and have a hypothetical solution. In practice when we’ve talked about using dns classes to solve problems that have motivated rfc6761 allocations, it hasn’t really helped, because the infrastructure required to use them this way is not present, and this isn’t how they were originally intended to be used.

For example, is ICANN.org with a different class not a subdomain of the .org TLD? Would ICANN not object to us designating it for use by someone else?  I suspect yes, and I wouldn’t blame them.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email