Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 16 Mar 2017, at 12:59, Ralph Droms wrote: If you really are looking for IETF discussion and consensus on the defining domain names, a third path would be an AD-sponsored submission, independent of any WG. Please do note that we already have such a discussion (that will go for IETF consens

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > > On 3/15/17, 20:22, "DNSOP on behalf of Russ Housley" on behalf of hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > >> I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references >> I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that >> doc

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 3/15/17, 20:22, "DNSOP on behalf of Russ Housley" wrote: >I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references >I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that >document.  What is the plan? Just accidently saw this...I haven't been reading DNSOP much recently. FWI

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > If you think that “on this topic” in the sentient refers only to the previous > sentence, then I am okay with that approach. However, I do not think that is > okay if “topic” refers to more than that. Yes, that's the precise point of referenci

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Ted: > On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Russ Housley > wrote: >> I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references >> I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that >> document. What is

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references > I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that > document. What is the plan? It's an informative reference. We're going to try to get Ed to publish the docume

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> Will I-D.lewis-domain-names be published as an Informational RFC as well? If > not, then the Introduction needs to extract highlights from that document. I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that document.

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Hi, Just rereading before the meeting. Re: > If there is an IETF process through which a name can be assigned at > zero cost other than time, this process will be used as an alternative > to purchasing the name through ICANN. perhaps just a small thing but it is not really a purchase but more

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

We've extracted issues from the reviews of draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps posted to the list so far, and entered them into the GitHub repo: https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps We're tracking discussion and resolution for issues there

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:40:16AM -0500, John R Levine wrote a message of 27 lines which said: > > URL, please, with the expected behavior of the resolver when queried > > for the domain. > > It's the IANA list of special use domains: > > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

to come along (.homenet?) will likely be different from any of the existing ones, this strikes me as akin to asking for a pony. Some people in the discussion wanted ICANN to do something. This is akin to asking for an unicorn (at least, ponies do exist). I wouldn't disagree. If you just want

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 03:11:01PM -, John Levine wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > Considering the vastly different ways that software handles .local > and .onion and example.com and 10.in-addr.arpa, and that next thing > to come along (.homenet?) will likely be different from any

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Hi Stephane, Thanks for the review, it’s helpful. I’ll leave it to the editors to take the first pass at integrating your comments, but: > On Feb 8, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real > technical problem with RFC

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

In article <20170208091536.vqwftrhpole33...@nic.fr> you write: >Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real >technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the >registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to >compile automatically the co

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

I think you have read the draft as if it were about "the problems with special-use names." This is not the intended reading. It is intended to be read as "the set of problems that motivated RFC 6761, plus the set of problems that would motivate an update to RFC 6761." Solutions are out of s

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:04:05PM -0500, Suzanne Woolf wrote a message of 82 lines which said: > This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: > > "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02 I'm not convinced that there really is a "problem" with specia

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Thanks for your review and comments, Russ. I've extracted the issues from your review and entered them in the GitHub issue tracker for the document. - Ralph > On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > >> >> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: >> >> "Special-Use Names P

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: > > "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ > Proposed status: informational > > Starts: 2 Feb. 2017 > Ends: 23 Feb. 2017 (3 weeks) > > Discussion should go to the mailing list. > >

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Rand wrote: > Suzanne Woolf: >> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: >> >> "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ >> >>

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Hi, Some comments on the draft….no hats. I’ve started at the beginning and covered through the beginning of Sec. 4; I’ll review the “existing practices" material separately. It looks severely critical because it’s long, but most of the changes suggested are small, and I’ve tried hard to keep t

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Suzanne Woolf: > This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: > > "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ > > Proposed status: informational > > Starts: 2 Feb. 2017 > En

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

>If not, can you suggest changes that would get your support for advancing it? >(“Send text” if possible!) It's closer than I had remembered. In the problem paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 6, on domain names that have been commandeered, I'd like it to say that there is no agreement o

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ Proposed status: informational Starts: 2 Feb. 2017 Ends: 23 Feb. 2017 (3 weeks) Discu