Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 27/03/2017 02:52, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> One important part is in the letter from NTIA (Karen Rose) to ICANN >> (Louis Touton) in Appendix A. >> >> A letter sent April 28, 2000. > > Is it online? I can't find it in the ICA

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On 27 Mar 2017, at 13:41, Ray Bellis wrote: > > On 27/03/2017 02:52, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> One important part is in the letter from NTIA (Karen Rose) to ICANN >> (Louis Touton) in Appendix A. >> >> A letter sent April 28, 2000. > > Is it online? I can't find it in the ICANN corres

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 27 Mar 2017, at 14:41, Ray Bellis wrote: > On 27/03/2017 02:52, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> One important part is in the letter from NTIA (Karen Rose) to ICANN >> (Louis Touton) in Appendix A. >> >> A letter sent April 28, 2000. > > Is it online? I can't find it in the ICANN correspondence a

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 27/03/2017 02:52, Patrik Fältström wrote: > One important part is in the letter from NTIA (Karen Rose) to ICANN > (Louis Touton) in Appendix A. > > A letter sent April 28, 2000. Is it online? I can't find it in the ICANN correspondence archive. Ray _

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 26 Mar 2017, at 17:17, Ozgur Karatas wrote: > 22.03.2017, 10:05, "Jim Reid" : > >>>  On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >>> >>>  RFC 3172 was written in 2001… > > the last updated was made in 2013, right? One important part is in the letter from NTIA (Karen Rose) to ICANN (Louis

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 26, 2017, at 10:47 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > If there is a technical requirement for a label, it has to be > very very strong to require a new reference in the "." anchored > namespace. But the reason you feel this way is that such allocations would preclude gTLD allocations. gTLD

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

I really have a problem with "that it is not representative of what is happening" -I mis-wrote to Ray, regarding how I believed he was characterizing OpenWRT code. How am I meant to interpret what you wrote here? Why am I not expected to respond, that is squatting in the face of a discussion about

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 26, 2017, at 9:51 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > I was thinking about the 'because its the (D)arpa" opposition when I > said that. I think *that* stated reason, is mostly now, a phantom. > Maybe I'm wrong on that too. Maybe its a giant political layer9 > football which will come back to hau

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

I was thinking about the 'because its the (D)arpa" opposition when I said that. I think *that* stated reason, is mostly now, a phantom. Maybe I'm wrong on that too. Maybe its a giant political layer9 football which will come back to haunt us, forever. Given how much of the planet happily goes into

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:36 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > Its only my personal opinion, but I think the opposition to use of > .ARPA is almost entirely fictive at this point. I take it that since this is just your personal opinion, we need not discuss it any further? Forgive me, but I do not thin

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Hi, > > On Mar 26, 2017, 5:37 PM -0700, George Michaelson , wrote: > > In no sense is the domain solely used or intended for PTR requests, > > > Is anyone claiming this? If so, that'd be really silly given the contents of > the .ARPA zone is:

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hi, On Mar 26, 2017, 5:37 PM -0700, George Michaelson , wrote: > In no sense is the domain solely used or intended for PTR requests, Is anyone claiming this? If so, that'd be really silly given the contents of the .ARPA zone is: as112.arpa. e164.arpa. in-addr-servers.arpa. in-addr.arpa. ip6-se

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Its only my personal opinion, but I think the opposition to use of .ARPA is almost entirely fictive at this point. In no sense is the domain solely used or intended for PTR requests, and I have successfully operated domains which vest A, and TXT records in the zone. Its just a string of chara

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

+1 to all from frmr usgovie. We ain't that clever. On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf > wrote: > > > > RFC 3172 was written in 2001… > > RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym: > Address and Routing Parame

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

In article you write: >> the last updated was made in 2013, right? > >The text of the document did not change. The date appears to be an artifact of >a change to the datatracker >database or tools, not the content or status of the underlying document. Probably RFC 7050 which established ipv4only

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Ozgur Karatas wrote: > > Hello, > > 22.03.2017, 10:05, "Jim Reid" : >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >>> >>> RFC 3172 was written in 2001… > > the last updated was made in 2013, right? The text of the document did not change. The date appe

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hello, 22.03.2017, 10:05, "Jim Reid" : >>  On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >>  RFC 3172 was written in 2001… the last updated was made in 2013, right? Regards, Ozgur ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailm

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> As Matt Larson just pointed out, "different protocol" may turn into a >> distraction. .homenet is asking for an entry in the special-use domain name >> registry and a specific kind of entry

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > As Matt Larson just pointed out, "different protocol" may turn into a > distraction. .homenet is asking for an entry in the special-use domain name > registry and a specific kind of entry in the DNS root zone. I take those > characteristics to

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> No snark intended, but if "the protocol" were really just DNS, we wouldn't >> be having this discussion. Rather, it is the DNS wire protocol using a >> local resolution context rather than

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Ralph Droms > wrote: >> No snark intended, but if "the protocol" were really just DNS, we wouldn't >> be having this discussion. Rather, it is the DNS wire protocol using a >> local

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23 March 2017 at 13:50, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > Hence w.r.t Matt Pounsett's argument that the -redact document go first > and then the assignment of ".homenet" be done later, the Homenet WG has > argued *very* strongly that this is not acceptable because it leaves > HNCP in an indeterminate st

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > No snark intended, but if "the protocol" were really just DNS, we wouldn't be > having this discussion. Rather, it is the DNS wire protocol using a local > resolution context rather than the root zone. In any event, yes, the locally > server h

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Ray Bellis wrote: On 23/03/2017 11:03, Paul Wouters wrote: The phrase "more important" is pretty meaningless. And as was indicated, it is all based on the levels of DNSSEC deployment on stubs, which could change dramatically if one phone vender would suddently enable valid

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 23/03/2017 10:34, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > >> I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation >> accomplishes in the absence of the insecure delegation. >> >> If I read your comment correctly, I can infer two thi

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23/03/2017 11:03, Paul Wouters wrote: > The phrase "more important" is pretty meaningless. And as was indicated, > it is all based on the levels of DNSSEC deployment on stubs, which could > change dramatically if one phone vender would suddently enable > validation or default to DNS-over-TLS

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote: 1. The protocol is sufficiently functional for deployment without working capability for DNSSEC validation. No, what was said was there wasn't very much dnssec validating stubs out there to cause visible problems at this moment. 2. Having a single-l

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23/03/2017 10:34, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation > accomplishes in the absence of the insecure delegation. > > If I read your comment correctly, I can infer two things about the > protocol, whether the insecure delegation is delay

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > I meant the question to cover both cases. The second question may well be > more important in the “never available” case, but that’s part of what I’m > trying to understand. I think in the "never available" case we would obsolete the allocatio

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> Hi Ray, >> >>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: >>> >>> I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation >>> mustn't be held up waiting for the re

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi Ray, > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: >> >> I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation >> mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation. > > I’m trying to make sure I under

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hi Ray, > On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation > mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation. I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation accomplishes in the absence o

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23/03/2017 09:32, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > As a comment on the document, then (that is what we're discussing, > right?), I'd note that the plan for allocation of a special-use name > contained in the draft does not state clearly (at least in my reading) > whether it is conditional on receivin

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hi, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 08:34:14AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > The working group is aware of the "wait many years" part of this approach, > and is willing to try and see. If the working group sees no progress over > the course of the next few years, we may shift to the latter approach. >

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 10:00 AM, John R Levine wrote: > Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the homenet WG who regularly > engages with ICANN, through AC's or SO's or the like? Possibly one of the two working group chairs. But how is this relevant? What's going on here is that we've stumbl

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

The working group is aware of the "wait many years" part of this approach, and is willing to try and see. If the working group sees no progress over the course of the next few years, we may shift to the latter approach. Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the homenet WG who regularly e

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:27 AM, John Levine wrote: > - waits many, many years while ICANN does what ICANN does about anything new > > At this point I see the only plausible options as choose .homenet and > require all validating resolvers to special-case it, or choose > .homenet.arpa and put whate

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

In article <04dea363-80f3-46e2-9f22-1d6fa3d31...@gmail.com> you write: >IETF is making a request of ICANN. It seems to me homenet-dot should be >revised: > >* take the relevant text out of the IANA considerations section >* add a section that > - motivates and explicitly defines the desired entr

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:19:24AM -0700, Ray Bellis wrote: >> Arguably I'm not "typical", but IMHO we shouldn't be designing for the >> lowest common denominator. > > That argument is absurd on the face of it, because anyone su

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hi, On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:19:24AM -0700, Ray Bellis wrote: > Arguably I'm not "typical", but IMHO we shouldn't be designing for the > lowest common denominator. That argument is absurd on the face of it, because anyone sufficiently clueful about systems to be using ssh or hand-entering domai

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 22/03/2017 08:11, Tim Chown wrote: > I’d like to think such uses are largely all GUI/icon driven. Or perhaps > increasingly voice driven, like Alexa. How often will foo.homenet.arpa, > or foo.homenet be used in typical cases? I use ".local" to access several devices in my home network that

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 22, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Well, when I print, it’s by selecting a printer by a name (that I or someone > gave it) from a list of printers I’ve already discovered (or configured). > When I throw a movie from my phone to the TV, it’s by hitting an icon on the > video player.

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Tim Chown > wrote: >> Interesting question then as to how often a typical home user would need to >> do so, if there’s GUI-driven service discovery on top? > > How often do end users acc

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Interesting question then as to how often a typical home user would need to > do so, if there’s GUI-driven service discovery on top? How often do end users access the web ui of their browser? (I don't know, just curious if you do.)

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 12:51, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Tim Chown > wrote: >> Surely the people who would make comments about (say) homenet.arpa are >> already making comments about in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa? So is there really >> that great

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 22, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Surely the people who would make comments about (say) homenet.arpa are > already making comments about in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa? So is there really > that great a harm in using .arpa for additional things (that make many lives > easier in many o

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 11:40, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >>> >>> RFC 3172 was written in 2001… >> >> RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym: Address >> and Routing Par

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> RFC 3172 was written in 2001… > > RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym: Address > and Routing Parameter Area - really? Well, no. I thought it wasn’t rewriti

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 22 Mar 2017, at 8:05, Jim Reid wrote: >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> RFC 3172 was written in 2001… > > RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym: Address > and Routing Parameter Area - really? > >> Respectfully, I’ve always wondered who has th

[DNSOP] .arpa

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > RFC 3172 was written in 2001… RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym: Address and Routing Parameter Area - really? > Respectfully, I’ve always wondered who has this problem (US or non-US) > besides network infra