IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 23 July 2015 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 1EAC21A1A42; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 kJyg88RZsnmQ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302481A0242; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 73DAA3BB39; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:01:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 73F65F00D61; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:01:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:01:33 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
Message-ID: <20150723160133.GA17372@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <20150720192219.53802.qmail@ary.lan> <55ADF2A7.3080403@cisco.com> <A0418F96-1D79-4BE9-A72A-7A47641E4AF3@gmail.com> <CAKr6gn1apWx2M7V-O6ea2kvor7Di6=jYMh-uY2ouTsgjkV6vLw@mail.gmail.com> <20150722084204.GA15378@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAKr6gn2413-2XW8d_stw0dTmP-KsmGgFgQ3tVXEgXrXmnCiQow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn2413-2XW8d_stw0dTmP-KsmGgFgQ3tVXEgXrXmnCiQow@mail.gmail.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 14.04 (trusty)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/r2Hp0yoqENlpVynWIAm2VAHc7Ps>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, ietf <IETF@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:02:03 -0000

[Back to dnsop where it belongs]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:28:48PM +0200,
 George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote 
 a message of 115 lines which said:

> I merely noted that there are voices (myself included) who think a
> revision might be most useful if it abnegated the right to make
> these decisions and said "the root zone vests with other people: ask
> other people to do things"

IMHO, before we embark on discussions about RFC6761bis, we need an
Internet-Draft describing precisely what is (perceived as) wrong in
RFC 6761. I was shocked that we have a "design team" to work on RFC
6761bis while we still do not have a consensus on the problems with
6761.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email