Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 05 July 2012 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A0711E80F5; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341531937; bh=9mjRcTtmG3+nB3CKa1wZh8OibyD6y9DdjWsdFC3z8R8=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=KsITWyVwHioBHv7Z2ItaSd5CeguDv0hzg2jl84EE4A9nBbeof2o6GIXk3FoSfkisE DcZaxytys+9PRzsolpfzUvKqAuAIy9kGaDfkrpBOEsh2ZKwMfbFsvo2KPaXCGwrZ1Z vs8fU6WYad6/0Q4VdvM5FhIrNLuzesqo0VVpubiw=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F3711E808A for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4bOzu0FOq8h for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB9A11E80F4 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (unknown [199.119.129.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08DEB8A031 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:45:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:45:47 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120705234547.GG1245@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> <CAKW6Ri5=c9N+wo_EUn7WrvzNZFVJkpfHcv0OKx8OBJ9ZLzJdGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEEqn-S6+8oTvmjeF6eKq+hmiov+AG+S3O41Nq12eUxDCw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri7mW0nuEudtyxVp=hoDvJNS8+O4G_LtVfU7nFkQKt-Omw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGDpdkxvDa-+HJRD4gYZf_k4fqj12dNcdCwY6-Ah3ENDg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEGDpdkxvDa-+HJRD4gYZf_k4fqj12dNcdCwY6-Ah3ENDg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

I'm not speaking in any sort of chair "here's-the-rules" role, but I
am speaking with the background of what I've learned as a chair of
this WG over time.

On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:54:13PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> a brand new draft/standard, I'm not sure how this would be settled.
> However, it is not. IANA Considerations for DNS has explicitly
> permitted hyphens in these mnemonics since 2008 (and were silent on
> this point before that) and a mnemonic with a hyphen was allocated
> earlier and remains in the registry today. Under these circumstances,
> I believe the RegEx should not be changed to prohibit hyphens.

I completely agree with Donald's point here.  If we are going to make
a substantive change to the rules along these lines (and one
incompatible with existing registrations), the bar for adoption will
be _much_ higher than if we do not do that.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext