IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Inip-discuss] aliases and classes (was Re: Domain Names)

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Sat, 13 February 2016 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3381ACED1 for <inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:07:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.802
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 R7QWHYaR0uGj for <inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F09641ACED0 for <inip-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:06:58 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:06:58 -0800
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>, "inip-discuss@iab.org" <inip-discuss@iab.org>
Thread-Topic: [Inip-discuss] aliases and classes (was Re: Domain Names)
Thread-Index: AQHRZQszmJlz/4cNpEq6nCjSMx78Yp8pK3sA
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 01:06:57 +0000
Message-ID: <D2E3C043.13856%edward.lewis@icann.org>
References: <2n8dkck7bl3hvk3pq4tya7bc.1453512710966@email.android.com> <20160123145602.GE14205@mx2.yitter.info> <20160209185917.GE53835@mx2.yitter.info> <56BCEF72.2080101@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <56BCEF72.2080101@acm.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.0.151221
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3538141596_30821210"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/inip-discuss/VY8-1tF8qVM3nrERWaPh-J4lXM8>
Subject: Re: [Inip-discuss] aliases and classes (was Re: Domain Names)
X-BeenThere: inip-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IAB Internet Names and Identifiers Discussion List <inip-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/inip-discuss>, <mailto:inip-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/inip-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:inip-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:inip-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/inip-discuss>, <mailto:inip-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 01:07:02 -0000

On 2/11/16, 12:30, "Inip-discuss on behalf of Avri Doria"
<inip-discuss-bounces@iab.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:

>seems fundamentally broken.  Has seemed that way to me for a while now.
>I know things like this can't be fixed, but ...

Pragmatically, there's nearly zero operational interest in making classes
useful.

I can't imagine a future in which a revival of the class feature will
benefit anyone.

These are weak reasons for saying - I wouldn't endorse spending too much
effort to fix or make more sense out of the DNS class concept.

Beyond that, I don't see that DNS classes have an impact on how Domain
Names would be further defined nor do I see DNS classes being something to
incorporate into a discussion of a name space.

I don't want to gut the concept from the protocol, because I don't think
the effort would be well spent, but I also don't see that I'd want to
preserve where it is in case there comes a time we could use it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email