From nobody Mon Dec 1 05:24:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285EA1A1BC3 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:24:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 v428c43YlpsA for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B54A1A1BC2 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:24:45 -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 15.0.847.32; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:24:41 -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 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:24:42 -0800 From: Edward Lewis To: "dbound@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) Thread-Index: AQHQDWoqtxMpCN7skEGedjoVQ6ogMw== Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:24:42 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.6.141106 x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.235] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3500267079_5703464" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/9C_dq6yrPE9o_mcINZwcJdvG0L8 Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Subject: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 13:24:49 -0000 --B_3500267079_5703464 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable After taking a few days away from this, I went to read the github charter. To me it reads like a DNS work item. I have two choices here: 1 Trim the current opening paragraph to this (I just cut off the last half): Various Internet protocols and applications require some mechanism for determining whether two domain names are related. A popular example is the need to determine whether example.com and foo.example.com, or even example.net, are subject to the same administrative control. To humans, the answer to this may be obvious. 2 Or, replace it with this (which tries to cover the same ground): =20 =20 =20 Various Internet protocols and applications make administrative judgements on domain names they use, such as performing an authorization check. Often times the judgement is applied to a domain name based on knowing something about another domain name, such as assuming foo.example.com is to be treated the same as example.com. That use case is simple and could be summed up as =E2=80=9Ccheck the rightmost labels=E2=80=9D but a slightly more complex use case could be to use the same judgements for example.net and example.com. Relying on what exists in the Domain Name System (DNS) and using how it internally manages names has been tried unsuccessfully, with the root cause of failure being that the administrative judgements are based on protocol and application details beyond the scope of the DNS system. The reason for the suggestions are I see this as a hazard: However, the Domain Name System (DNS), which is the service that handles domain name queries, does not currently provide the ability to mark these sorts of relationships. That sounds like an invitation to do DNS work to solve that gap. Option 1 removes the invitation by amputating it, option 2 removes is by saying =E2=80=9Cpast tries have failed." =20 =20 =20 --B_3500267079_5703464 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIIR+AYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIR6TCCEeUCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC D8EwggWwMIIEmKADAgECAhAOWKbdwJ1jDL89eBrwPJq7MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMGUxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IFNIQTIgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQTAeFw0xNDA1MjMw MDAwMDBaFw0xNzA1MjMxMjAwMDBaMIHPMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZv cm5pYTEUMBIGA1UEBxMLTG9zIEFuZ2VsZXMxPDA6BgNVBAoTM0ludGVybmV0IENvcnBvcmF0 aW9uIGZvciBBc3NpZ25lZCBOYW1lcyBhbmQgTnVtYmVyczEZMBcGA1UECxMQUmVnaXN0cnkg TGlhaXNvbjEVMBMGA1UEAxMMRWR3YXJkIExld2lzMSUwIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhZlZHdhcmQu bGV3aXNAaWNhbm4ub3JnMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0JEom0oS 4pUrB2WBIm2wlbHpZHfieug7mzF6dSQ4ko95ZtjYdBoD9bPg5DGJqbbYJPXW5QjtONH87Tks HYfgBJFGLghTdJQ7S0gG2Ey9gmqf0xkLZGLS/h5+8UUyuKsF33TZboycSEMQjpS/9NiyeCP1 IG7QA69VL//WzCcsMXfcYrqQy1++YNbCLO//h1sdOVHX1RAS5PjpBzqJkMaz+zeHPMGbO6p3 kVU5ww+z5bXOxPV7mg2aEYBGReOLE9AEcxC7G4p2JbhOIuFDrqReXNfP96+2gSSiIblZ5rvC 4CvDQngJkl8QpCDgIWivPwPd+pV7lIECnElyx7hID0XtrwIDAQABo4IB7zCCAeswHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAU5wIjgABP2Ne8lAvZP3Q5STI8inkwHQYDVR0OBBYEFInPVvBX6bjyb+ptVCyB9MCo AjCLMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIQYDVR0RBBowGIEWZWR3YXJkLmxld2lzQGljYW5uLm9yZzAO BgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMEMGA1UdIAQ8 MDowOAYKYIZIAYb9bAQBAjAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5j b20vQ1BTMIGIBgNVHR8EgYAwfjA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybDMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0Rp Z2lDZXJ0U0hBMkFzc3VyZWRJRENBLWcxLmNybDA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybDQuZGlnaWNl cnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0U0hBMkFzc3VyZWRJRENBLWcxLmNybDB5BggrBgEFBQcBAQRtMGsw JAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTBDBggrBgEFBQcwAoY3aHR0 cDovL2NhY2VydHMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0U0hBMkFzc3VyZWRJRENBLmNydDAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAXSa/5kRotclqD20zg8Q4k1CbLJXVEADyKZToYa/hwdv30MPe f+ahkFnqqL2tWMbCYydAzAwkdQInmMTB1LfriPaOieJiSA3HmCukmTuf8sW8DvpruIG2jl70 ZXStMKICbkmdQhnArVYqezzBbwJTMVQlTmaMOaZ3fLqsi5XzyD3l5llvR4AIkKwhWZU68q4m 4kGXPBpiPWMwEHX2DEixM/h1rGl1RXmG+FqjEG5H3wrPim3hUXcNyostwiZyRUVIuRlLGzJh nlJhql0YfTNg1YkLlX/YxbFov1nzobR84U39QLaqxiZ5F96WwBZLxW4nDn7rTDGG0l3W09yy EoOSczCCBk4wggU2oAMCAQICEASueWBmZpAaucV/pmxb3M0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwZTEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2lj ZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBSb290IENBMB4XDTEzMTEw NTEyMDAwMFoXDTI4MTEwNTEyMDAwMFowZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lD ZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQg U0hBMiBBc3N1cmVkIElEIENBMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA3PgR Iz9qte/AJ3kbLQWHohBDMd8O1BUbT3ekIs4+jHDwvgeO3ScqvAEdtiwKyt1pWB9B7WoFH9pj eFkeIiwr+Lp+yTU7VvEffEJ+JbAjGcZFONc9RPkgfGCuHLBaGAS+jzv3qfCUmqYMY0m2QRdT QDK9T+ZQelAfJUXo8Ymvzf9e/1Dz8BcR/73FifW9YrnY+45FBIVtmc3FSE39JqsCNkXqNtdf auIagkEK3OnZ9ZEXjsYhrTg8E+Yef2ac1U3ZRtr2z1KnfTskw7TBUTXGm+vU737kewPhRL16 CzfgT8uCig1xGOSm4IksG/OyczzBsJKeGH29q33FfQihLMKfcwIDAQABo4IC+DCCAvQwEgYD VR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAYYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsG AQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20wgYEGA1UdHwR6MHgwOqA4oDaGNGh0 dHA6Ly9jcmw0LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFzc3VyZWRJRFJvb3RDQS5jcmwwOqA4 oDaGNGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwzLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFzc3VyZWRJRFJvb3RDQS5j cmwwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMIIBswYDVR0gBIIBqjCCAaYwggGi BgpghkgBhv1sAAIEMIIBkjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29t L0NQUzCCAWQGCCsGAQUFBwICMIIBVh6CAVIAQQBuAHkAIAB1AHMAZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABp AHMAIABDAGUAcgB0AGkAZgBpAGMAYQB0AGUAIABjAG8AbgBzAHQAaQB0AHUAdABlAHMAIABh AGMAYwBlAHAAdABhAG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABEAGkAZwBpAEMAZQByAHQAIABD AFAALwBDAFAAUwAgAGEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAIABSAGUAbAB5AGkAbgBnACAAUABhAHIAdAB5 ACAAQQBnAHIAZQBlAG0AZQBuAHQAIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgAIABsAGkAbQBpAHQAIABsAGkAYQBi AGkAbABpAHQAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAYQByAGUAIABpAG4AYwBvAHIAcABvAHIAYQB0AGUAZAAg AGgAZQByAGUAaQBuACAAYgB5ACAAcgBlAGYAZQByAGUAbgBjAGUALjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU5wIj gABP2Ne8lAvZP3Q5STI8inkwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUReuir/SSy4IxLVGLp6chnfNtyA8wDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQELBQADggEBAE7UiSe5/R2Hd34PKAWQ8QovyTs+vZOckMav+pFRhzJUa+jKwXFR XJmOtfrgYhmZpgeafBMn2+UCooQS2RX2CkRXxDSPbXMfOtagAT3e44LkRWuy6yX9gF4dOZC+ W0L2zpFg4/mgVgxIEM4zaHvNk6vwastPWA+5e10bBIGepyLiV0kn7pKTCL5pCFMCOi5dyBn0 UIBOAtmwXZG0k4f5lpaBVUCOZu2C2LsoX+1MYe0GWCgZUxFEvEcgKbIEbNiJVJk7ddtneCwe knjGVT1YEhEybr1DDE0023vGQtvsvqubYUwGkuOO3yEqUFcEwGCiNdUknmY3CUnP1fhls+Di bsIwggO3MIICn6ADAgECAhAM5+DlF9hG/o/lYPwb8DA5MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGUxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgUm9vdCBDQTAeFw0wNjExMTAw MDAwMDBaFw0zMTExMTAwMDAwMDBaMGUxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2Vy dCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IEFz c3VyZWQgSUQgUm9vdCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAK0OFc7k Q4BcsYfzt2D5cRKlrtwmlIiq9M71IDkoWGAM+IDaqRWVMmE8tbEohIqK3J8KDIMXeo+QrIrn eVNcMYQq9g+YMjZ2zN7dPKii72r7IfJSYd+fINcf4rHZ/hhk0hJbX/lYGDW8R82hNvlrf9Sw OD7BG8OMM9nYLxj+KA+zp4PWw25EwGE1lhb+WZyLdm3X8aJLDSv/C3LanmDQjpA1xnhVhyCh z+VtCshJfDGYM2wi6YfQMlqiuhOCEe05F52ZOnKh5vqk2dUXMXWuhX0irj8BRob2KHnIsdrk VxfEfhwOsLSSplazvbKX7aqn8LfFqD+VFtD/oZbrCF8Yd08CAwEAAaNjMGEwDgYDVR0PAQH/ BAQDAgGGMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wHQYDVR0OBBYEFEXroq/0ksuCMS1Ri6enIZ3zbcgP MB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFEXroq/0ksuCMS1Ri6enIZ3zbcgPMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCi Drzf4u3w43JzemSUv/dyZtgy5EJ1Yq6H6/LV2d5Ws5/MzhQouQ2XYFwSTFjk0z2DSUVYlzVp GqhH6lbGeasS2GeBhN9/CTyU5rgmLCC9PbMoifdf/yLil4Qf6WXvh+DfwWdJs13rsgkq6ybt eL59PyvztyY1bV+JAbZJW58BBZurPSXBzLZ/wvFvhsb6ZGjrgS2U60K3+owe3WLxvlBnt2y9 8/Efaww2BxZ/N3ypW2168RJGYIPXJwS+S86XvsNnKmgR34DnDDNmvxMNFG7zfx9jEB76jRsl bWyPpbdhAbHSoyahEHGdreLD+cOZUbcrBwjOLuZQsqf6CkUvovDyMYIB/zCCAfsCAQEweTBl MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEVMBMGA1UEChMMRGlnaUNlcnQgSW5jMRkwFwYDVQQLExB3d3cuZGln aWNlcnQuY29tMSQwIgYDVQQDExtEaWdpQ2VydCBTSEEyIEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0ECEA5Ypt3A nWMMvz14GvA8mrswCQYFKw4DAhoFAKBdMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRNUrfet/ej7Www7OZk DgqJSrNYxzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNDEy MDExMzI0MzlaMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBADSUDo0Mrr+ZaIlhRcRLd97VJKMrhV93jOQJ Evks4xTAERR0dPkAvCZGoqge+rWo0Xh07ze1s4R3owrFlT9OG3+ozo5IH/CZg1UBMxb6o9ra M6JHuk5QgTw9OuZTddX48pLOoJ17kvtMaDw+gRR79kQtQCzzYuELbBcg1L2TJ0c3Q1kfrYNK OB5YABHgIvV/YhgZuCfg8bvPtSWRuU8H8iuz59JfWsgS3i29S8jQ6SnFFcbu6FNEKApyM749 X1Al0CQIz62k/ZW/TzJNheL4z534uMt5Er4dNrovDgJBhMZRz11o/mXOhok3fNU6ISBU24NS Xqgmit46jtmvrqsbCao= --B_3500267079_5703464-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:04:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85551A1BE7 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:04:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.741 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 ffQB3UXY0daC for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A5A01A1BE1 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-07-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0CBA8A031 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:04:27 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dbound@ietf.org Message-ID: <20141201150425.GA14038@mx1.yitter.info> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/5_Jr3PY-GwVrpr2sZbZN6s9VEZk Subject: Re: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:04:46 -0000 On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:24:42PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: > The reason for the suggestions are I see this as a hazard: > > However, the Domain Name System (DNS), which is the service that handles > domain name queries, does not currently provide the ability to mark these > sorts of relationships. > > > That sounds like an invitation to do DNS work to solve that gap. I don't see it. The point of that sentence is that people try to read these properties from the DNS, and the information isn't there. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:08:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B67E1A1BF1 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 MVmvrzual8yI for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4903E1A1BEF for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB1F8FsZ026468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:18 -0800 Message-ID: <547C845C.1080401@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:08:12 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edward Lewis , "dbound@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:08:18 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/aXW_y1jdhLOOXk2_RRuIuwfTRg0 Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:08:23 -0000 On 12/1/2014 5:24 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > 1 Trim the current opening paragraph to this (I just cut off the last > half): ... > 2 Or, replace it with this (which tries to cover the same ground): Ed's concern about reader misunderstanding makes sense. The shortened choice is clear, but not very helpful in understanding the nature of the problem the wg wants to address. The replacement text is clear and helpful. IMO, the added verbiage is significantly helpful for readers who do not already know about this work. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:08:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F671A1BFA for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=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 VPO58akGBy2N for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B641A1BF2 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id n3so17676040wiv.13 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:08:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VnSVWWAgD87ud8tkjS/K0GndFiT22fAZEWOG8xU1fIw=; b=Eax8ps9tBepTFAYhHHGaplQ1mFz+JWZoZ++2Xs2n3ktuNg2KofBKxPZiIvwZoki3qa zuBrnCrRlezyP0eck/7W4PIZMprVVqAiEjERT55g7Oo9VS3IQPCc4N/b2+rHJaLRetDr otIKSm8rxp+H8wqaI10b/sIrRh6MqcHqdg7QWilKO7x8mVQ8b+VlgYCl7lmmVMfFFoSY sKPWZ53/HiLjF/DSXWLLQuLzgjFcVWap72Ns9QsuuC8nzAtPLFDXBlVPz9rOh8o2Tzp3 IqU3exRDdHwikdU9VNmtpxx+B2Xyc7MbqaJ7LbAx8XU+NmjM3qTYIz6WH3ul9q7VgLmd ORZA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.75.199 with SMTP id e7mr86099296wiw.21.1417446505530; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:08:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141201150425.GA14038@mx1.yitter.info> References: <20141201150425.GA14038@mx1.yitter.info> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:25 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Andrew Sullivan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04389577734b6c050928fbb2 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/WqkbujnYxB9M2IdCTii0pxGPlX8 Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:08:29 -0000 --f46d04389577734b6c050928fbb2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:24:42PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: > > The reason for the suggestions are I see this as a hazard: > > > > However, the Domain Name System (DNS), which is the service that handles > > domain name queries, does not currently provide the ability to mark these > > sorts of relationships. > > > > > > That sounds like an invitation to do DNS work to solve that gap. > > I don't see it. The point of that sentence is that people try to read > these properties from the DNS, and the information isn't there. I think Ed's point is that one could interpret this to mean "...so we need to add it", versus "...so we need to find another way." --f46d04389577734b6c050928fbb2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Andrew Sullivan <aj= s@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On= Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:24:42PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote:
> The reason for the suggestions are I see this as a hazard:
>
> However, the Domain Name System (DNS), which is the service that handl= es
> domain name queries, does not currently provide the ability to mark th= ese
> sorts of relationships.
>
>
> That sounds like an invitation to do DNS work to solve that gap.

I don't see it.=C2=A0 The point of that sentence is that people = try to read
these properties from the DNS, and the information isn't there.

I think Ed's point is that one could interpret= this to mean "...so we need to add it", versus "...so we ne= ed to find another way."
--f46d04389577734b6c050928fbb2-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:09:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB891A0263 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:09:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 9nmIVXodgNR0 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA461A1BFB for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:09:27 -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 15.0.847.32; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:09:25 -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 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:09:25 -0800 From: Edward Lewis To: "dbound@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) Thread-Index: AQHQDWoqtxMpCN7skEGedjoVQ6ogM5x7W3uA//+tjgA= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:09:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20141201150425.GA14038@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20141201150425.GA14038@mx1.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.6.141106 x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.235] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3500273362_6094766" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/ZhXrqN5EbIvLk6YF6o4AC0Sdnr0 Cc: Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:09:33 -0000 --B_3500273362_6094766 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Maybe the word =E2=80=9Ccurrently=E2=80=9D is what I see as the invitation. (When something =E2=80=9Ccurrently=E2=80=9D lacks a feature, the engineer in me wants to blin= dly go build it.) =E2=80=9CDoes not currently provide=E2=80=9D could be replaced with =E2=80=9CD= oes not have=E2=80=9D - a more permanent assessment. On 12/1/14, 10:04, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:24:42PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: >> The reason for the suggestions are I see this as a hazard: >>=20 >> However, the Domain Name System (DNS), which is the service that handles >> domain name queries, does not currently provide the ability to mark >>these >> sorts of relationships. >>=20 >>=20 >> That sounds like an invitation to do DNS work to solve that gap. > >I don't see it. The point of that sentence is that people try to read >these properties from the DNS, and the information isn't there. > >A >--=20 >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > >_______________________________________________ >Dbound mailing list >Dbound@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound --B_3500273362_6094766 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIIR+AYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIR6TCCEeUCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC D8EwggWwMIIEmKADAgECAhAOWKbdwJ1jDL89eBrwPJq7MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMGUxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IFNIQTIgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQTAeFw0xNDA1MjMw MDAwMDBaFw0xNzA1MjMxMjAwMDBaMIHPMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZv cm5pYTEUMBIGA1UEBxMLTG9zIEFuZ2VsZXMxPDA6BgNVBAoTM0ludGVybmV0IENvcnBvcmF0 aW9uIGZvciBBc3NpZ25lZCBOYW1lcyBhbmQgTnVtYmVyczEZMBcGA1UECxMQUmVnaXN0cnkg TGlhaXNvbjEVMBMGA1UEAxMMRWR3YXJkIExld2lzMSUwIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhZlZHdhcmQu bGV3aXNAaWNhbm4ub3JnMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0JEom0oS 4pUrB2WBIm2wlbHpZHfieug7mzF6dSQ4ko95ZtjYdBoD9bPg5DGJqbbYJPXW5QjtONH87Tks HYfgBJFGLghTdJQ7S0gG2Ey9gmqf0xkLZGLS/h5+8UUyuKsF33TZboycSEMQjpS/9NiyeCP1 IG7QA69VL//WzCcsMXfcYrqQy1++YNbCLO//h1sdOVHX1RAS5PjpBzqJkMaz+zeHPMGbO6p3 kVU5ww+z5bXOxPV7mg2aEYBGReOLE9AEcxC7G4p2JbhOIuFDrqReXNfP96+2gSSiIblZ5rvC 4CvDQngJkl8QpCDgIWivPwPd+pV7lIECnElyx7hID0XtrwIDAQABo4IB7zCCAeswHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAU5wIjgABP2Ne8lAvZP3Q5STI8inkwHQYDVR0OBBYEFInPVvBX6bjyb+ptVCyB9MCo AjCLMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIQYDVR0RBBowGIEWZWR3YXJkLmxld2lzQGljYW5uLm9yZzAO BgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMEMGA1UdIAQ8 MDowOAYKYIZIAYb9bAQBAjAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5j b20vQ1BTMIGIBgNVHR8EgYAwfjA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybDMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0Rp Z2lDZXJ0U0hBMkFzc3VyZWRJRENBLWcxLmNybDA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybDQuZGlnaWNl cnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0U0hBMkFzc3VyZWRJRENBLWcxLmNybDB5BggrBgEFBQcBAQRtMGsw JAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTBDBggrBgEFBQcwAoY3aHR0 cDovL2NhY2VydHMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0U0hBMkFzc3VyZWRJRENBLmNydDAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAXSa/5kRotclqD20zg8Q4k1CbLJXVEADyKZToYa/hwdv30MPe f+ahkFnqqL2tWMbCYydAzAwkdQInmMTB1LfriPaOieJiSA3HmCukmTuf8sW8DvpruIG2jl70 ZXStMKICbkmdQhnArVYqezzBbwJTMVQlTmaMOaZ3fLqsi5XzyD3l5llvR4AIkKwhWZU68q4m 4kGXPBpiPWMwEHX2DEixM/h1rGl1RXmG+FqjEG5H3wrPim3hUXcNyostwiZyRUVIuRlLGzJh nlJhql0YfTNg1YkLlX/YxbFov1nzobR84U39QLaqxiZ5F96WwBZLxW4nDn7rTDGG0l3W09yy EoOSczCCBk4wggU2oAMCAQICEASueWBmZpAaucV/pmxb3M0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwZTEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2lj ZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBSb290IENBMB4XDTEzMTEw NTEyMDAwMFoXDTI4MTEwNTEyMDAwMFowZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lD ZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQg U0hBMiBBc3N1cmVkIElEIENBMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA3PgR Iz9qte/AJ3kbLQWHohBDMd8O1BUbT3ekIs4+jHDwvgeO3ScqvAEdtiwKyt1pWB9B7WoFH9pj eFkeIiwr+Lp+yTU7VvEffEJ+JbAjGcZFONc9RPkgfGCuHLBaGAS+jzv3qfCUmqYMY0m2QRdT QDK9T+ZQelAfJUXo8Ymvzf9e/1Dz8BcR/73FifW9YrnY+45FBIVtmc3FSE39JqsCNkXqNtdf auIagkEK3OnZ9ZEXjsYhrTg8E+Yef2ac1U3ZRtr2z1KnfTskw7TBUTXGm+vU737kewPhRL16 CzfgT8uCig1xGOSm4IksG/OyczzBsJKeGH29q33FfQihLMKfcwIDAQABo4IC+DCCAvQwEgYD VR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAYYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsG AQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20wgYEGA1UdHwR6MHgwOqA4oDaGNGh0 dHA6Ly9jcmw0LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFzc3VyZWRJRFJvb3RDQS5jcmwwOqA4 oDaGNGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwzLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFzc3VyZWRJRFJvb3RDQS5j cmwwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMIIBswYDVR0gBIIBqjCCAaYwggGi BgpghkgBhv1sAAIEMIIBkjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29t L0NQUzCCAWQGCCsGAQUFBwICMIIBVh6CAVIAQQBuAHkAIAB1AHMAZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABp AHMAIABDAGUAcgB0AGkAZgBpAGMAYQB0AGUAIABjAG8AbgBzAHQAaQB0AHUAdABlAHMAIABh AGMAYwBlAHAAdABhAG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABEAGkAZwBpAEMAZQByAHQAIABD AFAALwBDAFAAUwAgAGEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAIABSAGUAbAB5AGkAbgBnACAAUABhAHIAdAB5 ACAAQQBnAHIAZQBlAG0AZQBuAHQAIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgAIABsAGkAbQBpAHQAIABsAGkAYQBi AGkAbABpAHQAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAYQByAGUAIABpAG4AYwBvAHIAcABvAHIAYQB0AGUAZAAg AGgAZQByAGUAaQBuACAAYgB5ACAAcgBlAGYAZQByAGUAbgBjAGUALjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU5wIj gABP2Ne8lAvZP3Q5STI8inkwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUReuir/SSy4IxLVGLp6chnfNtyA8wDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQELBQADggEBAE7UiSe5/R2Hd34PKAWQ8QovyTs+vZOckMav+pFRhzJUa+jKwXFR XJmOtfrgYhmZpgeafBMn2+UCooQS2RX2CkRXxDSPbXMfOtagAT3e44LkRWuy6yX9gF4dOZC+ W0L2zpFg4/mgVgxIEM4zaHvNk6vwastPWA+5e10bBIGepyLiV0kn7pKTCL5pCFMCOi5dyBn0 UIBOAtmwXZG0k4f5lpaBVUCOZu2C2LsoX+1MYe0GWCgZUxFEvEcgKbIEbNiJVJk7ddtneCwe knjGVT1YEhEybr1DDE0023vGQtvsvqubYUwGkuOO3yEqUFcEwGCiNdUknmY3CUnP1fhls+Di bsIwggO3MIICn6ADAgECAhAM5+DlF9hG/o/lYPwb8DA5MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGUxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgUm9vdCBDQTAeFw0wNjExMTAw MDAwMDBaFw0zMTExMTAwMDAwMDBaMGUxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2Vy dCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IEFz c3VyZWQgSUQgUm9vdCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAK0OFc7k Q4BcsYfzt2D5cRKlrtwmlIiq9M71IDkoWGAM+IDaqRWVMmE8tbEohIqK3J8KDIMXeo+QrIrn eVNcMYQq9g+YMjZ2zN7dPKii72r7IfJSYd+fINcf4rHZ/hhk0hJbX/lYGDW8R82hNvlrf9Sw OD7BG8OMM9nYLxj+KA+zp4PWw25EwGE1lhb+WZyLdm3X8aJLDSv/C3LanmDQjpA1xnhVhyCh z+VtCshJfDGYM2wi6YfQMlqiuhOCEe05F52ZOnKh5vqk2dUXMXWuhX0irj8BRob2KHnIsdrk VxfEfhwOsLSSplazvbKX7aqn8LfFqD+VFtD/oZbrCF8Yd08CAwEAAaNjMGEwDgYDVR0PAQH/ BAQDAgGGMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wHQYDVR0OBBYEFEXroq/0ksuCMS1Ri6enIZ3zbcgP MB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFEXroq/0ksuCMS1Ri6enIZ3zbcgPMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCi Drzf4u3w43JzemSUv/dyZtgy5EJ1Yq6H6/LV2d5Ws5/MzhQouQ2XYFwSTFjk0z2DSUVYlzVp GqhH6lbGeasS2GeBhN9/CTyU5rgmLCC9PbMoifdf/yLil4Qf6WXvh+DfwWdJs13rsgkq6ybt eL59PyvztyY1bV+JAbZJW58BBZurPSXBzLZ/wvFvhsb6ZGjrgS2U60K3+owe3WLxvlBnt2y9 8/Efaww2BxZ/N3ypW2168RJGYIPXJwS+S86XvsNnKmgR34DnDDNmvxMNFG7zfx9jEB76jRsl bWyPpbdhAbHSoyahEHGdreLD+cOZUbcrBwjOLuZQsqf6CkUvovDyMYIB/zCCAfsCAQEweTBl MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEVMBMGA1UEChMMRGlnaUNlcnQgSW5jMRkwFwYDVQQLExB3d3cuZGln aWNlcnQuY29tMSQwIgYDVQQDExtEaWdpQ2VydCBTSEEyIEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0ECEA5Ypt3A nWMMvz14GvA8mrswCQYFKw4DAhoFAKBdMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBR6c/zrqVCN7F00wsz3 nDd0C6Wa6DAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNDEy MDExNTA5MjJaMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBALaiNxWzsGceWnTpG4eHgLdGJtSEhY0c7h// h8+DWQ2Cbv3b3TYG712Ueu5uZfQUxlyr+wr4ZZo4JbcLoQ4a/t2pSiZgiPavz2TizuE5XDca El7uw9pBwjEhgcDYzc85v7mXuChHIyf8ThIdsOOwgXbDFC5HTzqWwwss0UP/KGUU9Ho2BDnF 9jSUPoH9CqLUE4URu7fcjJUtyXLlH5kXw00XFA8/HoDcN6V/o87MI6qBCe26pRpBStOCbfCU FZ13OeRSx/RDcoGq6APS3QM5B9dYOq9ZLiCatno40sLXydnKqPcyY1+ngAikOTasqWoFKR9I pCI9YflG9a8PWTYT8UM= --B_3500273362_6094766-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:14:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D314B1A1BD4 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:14:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=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 46OfiAMk0Af2 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B75A31A1BF2 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:14:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id n3so17699451wiv.13 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:14:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BjlBGVDsetVEQ/+25NPi8h6x4c6mheNrxB5f++ngNWA=; b=bIYJq3XMbLKlWvO+3eDTOHfyiQpwdCKYKIi1MMEOYMfpon6Vd+tlOwfziQ1ArXW1dN T6GceSD2O/o1yfNDJI9hCfbRfxi28YREOyMDCp9+BiyuH+M6nWMK0ifrAAFOx7gD2IEK mw8ddVQ6T8de6fPC63rTeXto5N+o07/PsipZ1o9VsOUHu8k73/TX9kMvpqIbrBukjti6 iKKCI+qa4z3URdDBkGLGQe35QUV5161RdRjXiqy/gn7Hu6iKrTgfHzfPvupbftECoV2B FHXpx+GhLeMt8VfNFBObvMpKINVFrxfXYQqsy8H3AfTDXLACH+CMNYXW2NtVkrPwRW5p NxBA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.76.80 with SMTP id i16mr42825016wiw.61.1417446855549; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:14:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:14:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141201150425.GA14038@mx1.yitter.info> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:14:15 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Edward Lewis Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7d0a5029a305092910c0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/VS8kRb9-5cRgxJEKiEYM2v8V3OU Cc: Andrew Sullivan , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:14:19 -0000 --f46d043c7d0a5029a305092910c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Edward Lewis wrote= : > Maybe the word =E2=80=9Ccurrently=E2=80=9D is what I see as the invitatio= n. (When > something =E2=80=9Ccurrently=E2=80=9D lacks a feature, the engineer in me= wants to blindly > go build it.) =E2=80=9CDoes not currently provide=E2=80=9D could be repl= aced with =E2=80=9CDoes > not have=E2=80=9D - a more permanent assessment. > Applied, in place of your earlier two suggestions. A much simpler edit, and avoids the additional problem of making later paragraphs fairly redundant. -MSK --f46d043c7d0a5029a305092910c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Edward Lewis <edward= .lewis@icann.org> wrote:
Maybe the word =E2=80= =9Ccurrently=E2=80=9D is what I see as the invitation.=C2=A0 (When
something =E2=80=9Ccurrently=E2=80=9D lacks a feature, the engineer in me w= ants to blindly
go build it.)=C2=A0 =E2=80=9CDoes not currently provide=E2=80=9D could be r= eplaced with =E2=80=9CDoes
not have=E2=80=9D - a more permanent assessment.

<= /div>
Applied, in place of your earlier two suggestions.=C2=A0 A much s= impler edit, and avoids the additional problem of making later paragraphs f= airly redundant.

-MSK
--f46d043c7d0a5029a305092910c0-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:23:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A56A1A3B9E for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:23:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 f4q1JfMHT_go for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 439C71A1EE8 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB1FNA6W026914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:23:13 -0800 Message-ID: <547C87DB.90206@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:23:07 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20141126004709.26151.qmail@ary.lan> <5475FF08.9040809@dcrocker.net> <547670CF.7040504@dcrocker.net> <5479E657.4010302@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:23:13 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/hta4sF198lgDN09G1pde4Mycur0 Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] identifiers vs. domain names (was Re: Sketch charter) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:23:54 -0000 On 11/30/2014 9:29 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Dave Crocker > wrote: > > > Prior solutions for identifying relationships between domain names > > have relied primarily upon the DNS namespace and protocol to provide > > a service that actually exists outside of both. Relying on the DNS > > to do so thus renders such solutions unreliable and unnecessarily > > constrained. For example, confirming or dismissing a relationship between > > two domain names based on the existence of a zone cut or common ancestry > > is often unfounded, and the notion of an upward "tree walk" as a > search > > mechanism is considered unacceptable. > > Both of these examples are /within/ the protocol. That runs contrary to > the opening assertion of this paragraph. Other than the PSL, I've no > idea what other 'prior solutions' are being cited. I doubt a non-expert > (or possibly expert) reader will, either. > > > Both of those are examples of something happening via the protocol to > try to discover something that exists completely outside of the > protocol, and it doesn't work. That's what the cited paragraph is > trying to say. I put honest effort into reading and understanding the text. I have some background in protocol design and in the DNS. My interpretation of that text's meaning matches what I said, not what you suggest was meant. I'm not challenging what is intended by the existing text but what is accomplished by it. If someone with my background derived a meaning significantly (and problematically) different from what is intended, it's worth considering language that is more pedagogical to a wider audience. In particular, what is meant by 'within a protocol' vs. 'external to the protocol' can obviously be easily misunderstood, even to the extent that experts can disagree. For example, I think that the structure of the stored DNS is a property of the DNS. Hence something that attempts to derive meaning from that structure can plausibly be classed as working within the DNS. (I'm not seeking a debate about the validity of this view; I'm merely noting that I think it a plausible source of confusion.) So some extra verbiage clarifying what is meant here is worthwhile. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:58:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C0C1A6F07 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:58:41 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 zKW5-6zysOqF for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:58:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp84.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp84.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 334791A3B9F for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:58:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8653F1808D6 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:58:38 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 3426A180881 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:58:37 -0500 (EST) X-Sender-Id: ogud@ogud.com Received: from [10.20.30.43] (pool-74-96-189-180.washdc.fios.verizon.net [74.96.189.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.3.2); Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:58:38 GMT From: Olafur Gudmundsson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0964714B-53C4-4028-819F-A6D17758E727" Message-Id: <6D2C4C7A-D1D1-41F2-A9D4-B4B1A82151BB@ogud.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:58:36 -0500 To: dbound@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/ojv11k5uti8EgiWz8AwUyWsgHEg Subject: [Dbound] The meaning of an entry in PSL and possible semantics for Dbound solutions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:58:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0964714B-53C4-4028-819F-A6D17758E727 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi I have been thinking about what are the semantics for Dbound like = system.=20 What I have come up with as draft semantics when comparing names like = three.two.one.example to two.one.example=20 are =E2=80=9CSame organization=E2=80=9D,=20 =E2=80=9CUnrelated=E2=80=9D,=20 =E2=80=9CRelated but sets own policies=E2=80=9D=20 etc.=20 All the entries in PSL are for =E2=80=9CUnrelated=E2=80=9D situations.=20= The current draft of the charter propagates the myth that these are the = only places where =E2=80=9Cregistrations or delegations=E2=80=9D can = occur,=20 Here is my stab at rewording the beginning of paragraph 5:=20 Currently the most well known solution in existence is the Public = Suffix=20 List (PSL). The PSL is maintained by a Web Browser producer and is = kept=20 current by volunteers on best-effort basis. It contains a list of = points=20 - in the hierarchical namespace at which registrations take place, and = is - used to identify the boundary between so-called "public" names (below = which - registrations can occur) and the private names (i.e., organizational = names) - below them. + in the hierarchical namespace, at where entities with no = organizational relationship to parent + can get names delegated (i..e. commonly known as registrations).=20 I really do not like calling names public or private, it has the wrong=20= implications. I think the =E2=80=9CPublic=E2=80=9D in PSL name is a = statement of publication not implication of associations.=20 If you agree that this is better wording then the second half of this = paragraph can be reworded.=20 Olafur --Apple-Mail=_0964714B-53C4-4028-819F-A6D17758E727 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Hi

I = have been thinking about what are the semantics for Dbound like = system. 

What I have come up with as draft semantics when comparing = names like three.two.one.example to two.one.example 
are  =E2=80=9CSame organization=E2=80=9D, 
       =E2=80=9CUnrelated=E2=80=9D, 
       =E2=80=9CRelated but sets = own policies=E2=80=9D 
etc. 

All the entries in PSL = are for =E2=80=9CUnrelated=E2=80=9D situations. 

The current draft of the = charter propagates the myth that these are the only places where = =E2=80=9Cregistrations or delegations=E2=80=9D can = occur, 

Here is my stab at rewording the beginning of paragraph = 5: 

  =   Currently the most well known solution in existence is the Public = Suffix 
    List (PSL). The PSL is = maintained by a Web Browser producer and is kept 
    current by volunteers on best-effort basis. It = contains a list of points 
- in the = hierarchical namespace at which registrations take place, and = is
- used to identify the = boundary between so-called "public" names (below which
- registrations can occur) and the private names = (i.e., organizational names)
- = below them.
 + =  in the hierarchical namespace, at where entities with no = organizational relationship to parent
 + =  can get names delegated (i..e. commonly known as = registrations). 

I really do not like calling names public or private, it has = the wrong 
implications. I think the = =E2=80=9CPublic=E2=80=9D in PSL name is a statement of publication not = implication of
associations. 
If you agree that this is better wording then = the second half of this paragraph can
be = reworded. 

   Olafur

= --Apple-Mail=_0964714B-53C4-4028-819F-A6D17758E727-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 08:21:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6641A6F62 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:21:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 3LcX8GsITjFD for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:21:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC66A1A1EEA for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id tr6so9714844ieb.31 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 08:21:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TLLz8E162ODua/t2NR3ct4H4ZjWsvx/DoRy7/o/33TA=; b=fgOuBcy765kGdBbMvG5t0vgwuMlO3CU9ksAbTsXQvYUmYVHQsxcHYP2OeEA482UmJ3 K517I4eNWHKCZ4bVzGoxwQKb72C3j3yBZMrDh6JayUNKLrS7z9EgEstgfFFJINd+fthw p8+xpkhcY11N2heIVILxCXWtcitQDkt2h+4Pc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TLLz8E162ODua/t2NR3ct4H4ZjWsvx/DoRy7/o/33TA=; b=ZoGbxYRfMb6W4z5iKZFWVoaOx4ygZkpcaL5ZGmdLUj2ZMLkWDzL4TDAiASqaYTpeNJ sfiSF4kMbsIFErzVYnIH9+ygq2BJlv2z0KN4QICTutxqjsvwWDBYJpe75nKaiWhXwR2V jixJeycDWVEGQ0o9Uup2Ch5kpSU2zecXAWXe7zJl0x5XSYGSUT8nrOt4lBPH9TpkSD6j 9vEzKCQaqTj5Ts0+iBnbShn7SlZIiX7wosVJ4NTT75YWcdHi9hAMhuASBYw1JdSIjdIr ujOAJLSK6ZxUN67l+bopT+31De9nRIOJwbadzLCZKpEK77fP91kgIa2+Wl7If/bNnXi/ nxow== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0LQab3JXsSaiGi0Ywm7GthoLVNwsud9PPOiBJg8PYtmJjCeQwpsM5DzXR2hJUVYj5S8TD MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.142.33 with SMTP id rt1mr46787572igb.12.1417450858366; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 08:20:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.47.12 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:20:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6D2C4C7A-D1D1-41F2-A9D4-B4B1A82151BB@ogud.com> References: <6D2C4C7A-D1D1-41F2-A9D4-B4B1A82151BB@ogud.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:20:58 -0500 Message-ID: From: Casey Deccio To: Olafur Gudmundsson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130d17ae691a0050929fed0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/KTEhSb3tKGdlRp1aD1kzSHzPbXw Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] The meaning of an entry in PSL and possible semantics for Dbound solutions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 16:21:41 -0000 --001a1130d17ae691a0050929fed0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > > The current draft of the charter propagates the myth that these are the > only places where =E2=80=9Cregistrations or delegations=E2=80=9D can occu= r, > I (personally) don't get that impression from reading the text: "[The PSL] contains a list of points... at which registrations take place". Note that because it reads "a list" instead of "the list", it doesn't come off as definitive to me. ... > I really do not like calling names public or private, it has the wrong > implications. > There have been some concerns about using the terms "public" and "private". Regardless of whether or not those are the "right" terms, the terms would need to be more formally defined for consistent usage and reference. However, for the purposes of the charter, some contextual definitions have been added parenthetically to explain/define the PSL itself, whose name is already established. > I think the =E2=80=9CPublic=E2=80=9D in PSL name is a statement of public= ation not > implication of > associations. > As you mentioned earlier, the "public/private" boundary drawn by the PSL is in fact an assertion of non-associations (for the purposes of policy). However, in many cases, that is sufficient (i.e., ruling out is/can be part of the process of identifying or dismissing an association). Casey --001a1130d17ae691a0050929fed0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogu= d.com> wrote:

The current draft of the charter propag= ates the myth that these are the only places where =E2=80=9Cregistrations o= r delegations=E2=80=9D can occur,=C2=A0

I (personally) don't get that impression from reading the text: &quo= t;[The PSL] contains a list of points... at which registrations take place&= quot;.=C2=A0 Note that because it reads "a list" instead of "= ;the list", it doesn't come off as definitive to me.

...
I really do not like calling n= ames public or private, it has the wrong=C2=A0
implications.

There have been som= e concerns about using the=20 terms "public" and "private".=C2=A0 Regardless of wheth= er or not those are=20 the "right" terms, the terms would need to be more formally defin= ed for consistent usage and reference.=C2=A0=20 However, for the purposes of the charter, some contextual definitions have = been added parenthetically to explain/define the PSL itself, whose name is = already established.
=C2=A0
I think the =E2= =80=9CPublic=E2=80=9D in PSL name is a statement of publication not implica= tion of
associations.=C2=A0

As you mentioned earlier, the "public/private&= quot; boundary drawn by the PSL is in fact an assertion of non-associations= (for the purposes of policy).=C2=A0 However, in many cases, that is suffic= ient (i.e., ruling out is/can be part of the process of identifying or dism= issing an association).

Casey
--001a1130d17ae691a0050929fed0-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 10:18:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E863E1A87C1 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:18:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no 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 VvPXZCfaw1ya for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C7B71A8785 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (nat-07-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A30B48A035 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:18:04 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dbound@ietf.org Message-ID: <20141201181804.GK14038@crankycanuck.ca> References: <6D2C4C7A-D1D1-41F2-A9D4-B4B1A82151BB@ogud.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6D2C4C7A-D1D1-41F2-A9D4-B4B1A82151BB@ogud.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/TBqItZjosJ2BGc64fwdRUiAst9k Subject: Re: [Dbound] The meaning of an entry in PSL and possible semantics for Dbound solutions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:18:30 -0000 On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:58:36AM -0500, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > What I have come up with as draft semantics when comparing names like three.two.one.example to two.one.example > are “Same organization”, > “Unrelated”, > “Related but sets own policies” > etc. There are lots of possible meanings. In general, the point is to say (1) that names are related in some way and (2) what the relation is. The first proposals we have (from John on the one hand and Jeff and I on the other) are "same policy boundary", but there certainly could be others. An obvious example of this would be, "treat as aliases for one another," which would do what one wants for "variants"; but we don't have such a proposal now. > All the entries in PSL are for “Unrelated” situations. I think this is a useful point: the PSL basically assumes that parent-child relationships are related, and then makes a list of non-related cases. So there's an inclusion-based or exclusion based distnction that is worth keeping in mind. I don't think that needs to be in the charter, but it might be helpful for our thinking. > The current draft of the charter propagates the myth that these are the only places where “registrations or delegations” can occur, > I don't understand why you say that. The charter's _point_ is that the existing system is broken. > Here is my stab at rewording the beginning of paragraph 5: > > Currently the most well known solution in existence is the Public Suffix > List (PSL). The PSL is maintained by a Web Browser producer and is kept > current by volunteers on best-effort basis. It contains a list of points > - in the hierarchical namespace at which registrations take place, and is > - used to identify the boundary between so-called "public" names (below which > - registrations can occur) and the private names (i.e., organizational names) > - below them. > + in the hierarchical namespace, at where entities with no organizational relationship to parent > + can get names delegated (i..e. commonly known as registrations). The proposed change suggests that delegation is a relevant issue for this. It isn't. Delegation is fully irrelevant to this problem, and that's part of the confusion. > I really do not like calling names public or private, it has the wrong > implications. Too bad. That's the term people have been using, so the charter needs to reflect that. I think any WG product should certainly try to replace the public/private distinction with something more sophisticated, but the charter should definitely start from the place people are coming from. I think the “Public” in PSL name is a statement of publication not implication of > associations. I don't understand that sentence. > If you agree that this is better wording then the second half of this paragraph can > be reworded. I do not think it is an improvement, as I suggest above. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Mon Dec 1 11:31:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549BA1A8A71 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:31:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 nErLtmA9-n-f for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F6D01A8A07 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:30:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id h11so25779244wiw.7 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:30:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QMyeDAdrnUgVyyd8xT1bDCRxjN1lZrmJUg9y+21TQ8M=; b=QIp8/MrXruX/D3TUcY4jZS3Rqvt3b1ZzhW0Ja/ZlPPyLxVlpCjMtQD1ALQBSDruuy4 2WskLyBwBb1hbSqbkDn9foFdQ7BR8O/esKBm5wHlxbCVYxtZzK2xdtfAu+GQnoNumWko 5PfTs00WGahUdFzE+bo0fDDUqFus7PQcGF+2OQf7r71K5h5YBFU1DsDo/qHquDU+UGfr bygrSSTAmEZEcAFQRP2zqP3EG7sA5ziEGFIr4n0KyIPK6IyPFT8/T3/sONwVKDG+k1lA LK1rn3ma3DNVJbzKq/ceytfoH5Wr+7z2vO3eDrwY72IKma1waw01QVumy/lp8Ef1UqUl NmCg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.211.201 with SMTP id ne9mr22839262wic.30.1417462221104; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:30:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:30:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <547C87DB.90206@dcrocker.net> References: <20141126004709.26151.qmail@ary.lan> <5475FF08.9040809@dcrocker.net> <547670CF.7040504@dcrocker.net> <5479E657.4010302@dcrocker.net> <547C87DB.90206@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:30:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Dave Crocker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c266d62bed4005092ca454 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/R6l9ujK45bOUGdB24fruX7dg5qE Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] identifiers vs. domain names (was Re: Sketch charter) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:31:10 -0000 --001a11c266d62bed4005092ca454 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Both of these examples are /within/ the protocol. That runs > contrary to > > the opening assertion of this paragraph. Other than the PSL, I've no > > idea what other 'prior solutions' are being cited. I doubt a > non-expert > > (or possibly expert) reader will, either. > > > > Both of those are examples of something happening via the protocol to > > try to discover something that exists completely outside of the > > protocol, and it doesn't work. That's what the cited paragraph is > > trying to say. > > I put honest effort into reading and understanding the text. I have > some background in protocol design and in the DNS. My interpretation of > that text's meaning matches what I said, not what you suggest was meant. > > I'm not challenging what is intended by the existing text but what is > accomplished by it. If someone with my background derived a meaning > significantly (and problematically) different from what is intended, > it's worth considering language that is more pedagogical to a wider > audience. > I'm also not impugning your criticism or expertise, but rather inviting (at this point almost begging for) suggestions about what specific changes to make. I took a run at it and produced something that looks clear to me but not to you. Thus, I understand that you feel this text is a problem, but I'm at a loss in terms of what else to try. > In particular, what is meant by 'within a protocol' vs. 'external to the > protocol' can obviously be easily misunderstood, even to the extent that > experts can disagree. > > For example, I think that the structure of the stored DNS is a property > of the DNS. Hence something that attempts to derive meaning from that > structure can plausibly be classed as working within the DNS. (I'm not > seeking a debate about the validity of this view; I'm merely noting that > I think it a plausible source of confusion.) > > So some extra verbiage clarifying what is meant here is worthwhile. I've taken another run at it and pushed it to github, but I honestly don't know if it's better or worse at this point. So to repeat my previous request: If this isn't good enough, and now that you know what was meant, please provide me with new text to use rather than abstract guidance. -MSK --001a11c266d62bed4005092ca454 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker= .net> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Both of these examples are /within/ the protocol.= =C2=A0 That runs contrary to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the opening assertion of this paragraph.=C2=A0 Othe= r than the PSL, I've no
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0idea what other 'prior solutions' are being= cited.=C2=A0 I doubt a non-expert
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(or possibly expert) reader will, either.
>
> Both of those are examples of something happening via the protocol to<= br> > try to discover something that exists completely outside of the
> protocol, and it doesn't work.=C2=A0 That's what the cited par= agraph is
> trying to say.

I put honest effort into reading and understanding the text.=C2=A0 I= have
some background in protocol design and in the DNS.=C2=A0 My interpretation = of
that text's meaning matches what I said, not what you suggest was meant= .

I'm not challenging what is intended by the existing text but what is accomplished by it.=C2=A0 If someone with my background derived a meaning significantly (and problematically) different from what is intended,
it's worth considering language that is more pedagogical to a wider
audience.

I'm also not impugning yo= ur criticism or expertise,=20 but rather inviting (at this point almost begging for) suggestions about what specific changes to make.=C2=A0 I took a run at it and produced somet= hing that=20 looks clear to me but not to you.=C2=A0 Thus, I understand that you feel th= is text is a problem, but I'm at a loss in terms of what else to try.
= =C2=A0
In particular, what is meant by 'within a protocol' vs. 'extern= al to the
protocol' can obviously be easily misunderstood, even to the extent tha= t
experts can disagree.

For example, I think that the structure of the stored DNS is a property
of the DNS.=C2=A0 Hence something that attempts to derive meaning from that=
structure can plausibly be classed as working within the DNS. (I'm not<= br> seeking a debate about the validity of this view; I'm merely noting tha= t
I think it a plausible source of confusion.)

So some extra verbiage clarifying what is meant here is worthwhile.

I've taken another run at it and pushed it to = github, but I honestly don't know if it's better or worse at this p= oint.=C2=A0 So to repeat my previous request: If this isn't good enough= , and now that you know what was meant, please provide me with new text to = use rather than abstract guidance.

-MSK
<= /div>
--001a11c266d62bed4005092ca454-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 11:45:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD66D1A8A44 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:45:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 680y9av0CxWV for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:45:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D4C61A8A8B for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:45:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB1Jj6tB008116 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:45:10 -0800 Message-ID: <547CC53F.3080700@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:45:03 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20141126004709.26151.qmail@ary.lan> <5475FF08.9040809@dcrocker.net> <547670CF.7040504@dcrocker.net> <5479E657.4010302@dcrocker.net> <547C87DB.90206@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:45:10 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/bR7SD15EcJ0DdYxoBbgBRr_UwVs Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] identifiers vs. domain names (was Re: Sketch charter) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:45:14 -0000 On 12/1/2014 11:30 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I'm also not impugning your criticism or expertise, but rather inviting oh boy. none was taken. i invoked the pedantic style merely to make the baseline issue clear. we are a very inbred group and often lose sight of how are knowledge and assumption are different from other, desired readers of our charters (and other documents.) > I've taken another run at it and pushed it to github, but I honestly I'm almost sorry to say that I like this latest current version... I do note the interesting and relevant issue Olafur has raised but don't know how to resolve it or whether it's essential to resolve it for chartering. My guess is that ongoing conversation about this will be helpful, since it seems to touch on basic issues of modeling the working group's problem and/or solution space, but again, I don't think it's essential to resolve it first. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Dec 1 11:58:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A511A8A7F for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:58:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 6QMDkSw6MG7G for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 882911A8987 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l89so7976265qgf.38 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:58:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=YayHfYFNAFv2ZCdDarTZy6f+vDDZDH3rUMojTE1EZiU=; b=Mo6ZiZs2NqJRQN9e2zbohW/OA8Aqs1vFZw7wyKnWVME5DmGXQ8bJBEA4DD6skWZ3u+ UQl6WI6oCQEWfVZMyZYNwYR8rzFbPMC9PLHOs4XWUHpmFJGKKe0Ni/QWFgH8SfdYpgFR UAqY41rQrZca/lCPOY1XCI5wYhMAg1nwyum7PISG4CkJ6TjAfL3d3APuuDx2NzqZ1p+A pSWsb7LFyu2OI+iQjwKhQ59I8Bg10SFTMbttaGrnBIYIhglGGSsHsvsLXjbLoDIDOvjv IVkytTmU+gw0Y12mNaiGf+27uykMNGluQGJo9STPRS39BofePXNxaEDYakzXnjoqgzXl ha3w== X-Received: by 10.140.20.175 with SMTP id 44mr85695894qgj.22.1417463927616; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:58:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:6:3a80:77e:127:6834:fdba:2e3e? ([2601:6:3a80:77e:127:6834:fdba:2e3e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b17sm18253827qah.35.2014.12.01.11.58.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:58:46 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2191E4FF-314E-42B1-9463-6E471F7CAD0C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Suzanne Woolf In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:58:45 -0500 Message-Id: <1F9B9697-ED7A-4991-B7B7-895A434AED21@gmail.com> References: <20141126004709.26151.qmail@ary.lan> <5475FF08.9040809@dcrocker.net> <547670CF.7040504@dcrocker.net> <5479E657.4010302@dcrocker.net> <547C87DB.90206@dcrocker.net> To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/sGyhhvmP3z22ZpbfhcnF30XQetU Cc: dbound@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dbound] identifiers vs. domain names (was Re: Sketch charter) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:58:50 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2191E4FF-314E-42B1-9463-6E471F7CAD0C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:30 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" = wrote: >=20 > In particular, what is meant by 'within a protocol' vs. 'external to = the > protocol' can obviously be easily misunderstood, even to the extent = that > experts can disagree. >=20 > For example, I think that the structure of the stored DNS is a = property > of the DNS. Hence something that attempts to derive meaning from that > structure can plausibly be classed as working within the DNS. (I'm not > seeking a debate about the validity of this view; I'm merely noting = that > I think it a plausible source of confusion.) >=20 > So some extra verbiage clarifying what is meant here is worthwhile. This is where I thought the distinction I was trying to suggest between = the namespace and the wire protocol can be helpful; both are "within the = protocol," but are distinct for the purposes of the problem we're trying = to address. The namespace is being re-used by other applications as = well, and they want to add properties to it that DNS protocol doesn't = use or even have. But that description too appears to be subject to the = "easily misunderstood, even to the extent that experts can disagree" = limitation. I may be missing something, but I'm afraid there's no way to = frame this at the level of clarity we'd all like. > I've taken another run at it and pushed it to github, but I honestly = don't know if it's better or worse at this point. So to repeat my = previous request: If this isn't good enough, and now that you know what = was meant, please provide me with new text to use rather than abstract = guidance. I like this version but I was OK with the last one. We may be going in = circles, and possibly even tripping over the problem we're trying to = solve as we go. Wider review will tell us. As someone already said (Andrew?), it's time = for more eyes. thanks, Suzanne --Apple-Mail=_2191E4FF-314E-42B1-9463-6E471F7CAD0C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii superuser@gmail.com> = wrote:


In particular, what is meant by 'within a protocol' vs. 'external to = the
protocol' can obviously be easily misunderstood, even to the extent = that
experts can disagree.

For example, I think that the structure of the stored DNS is a = property
of the DNS.  Hence something that attempts to derive meaning from = that
structure can plausibly be classed as working within the DNS. (I'm = not
seeking a debate about the validity of this view; I'm merely noting = that
I think it a plausible source of confusion.)

So some extra verbiage clarifying what is meant here is = worthwhile.

This= is where I thought the distinction I was trying to suggest between the = namespace and the wire protocol can be helpful; both are "within the = protocol," but are distinct for the purposes of the problem we're trying = to address. The namespace is being re-used by other applications as = well, and they want to add properties to it that DNS protocol doesn't = use or even have. But that description too appears to be subject to the = "easily misunderstood, even to the extent that experts can disagree" = limitation. I may be missing something, but I'm afraid there's no way to = frame this at the level of clarity we'd all = like.

I've taken another = run at it and pushed it to github, but I honestly don't know if it's = better or worse at this point.  So to repeat my previous request: = If this isn't good enough, and now that you know what was meant, please = provide me with new text to use rather than abstract = guidance.

I like = this version but I was OK with the last one. We may be going in circles, = and possibly even tripping over the problem we're trying to solve as we = go.

Wider review will tell us. As someone = already said (Andrew?), it's time for more = eyes.


thanks,
Suzanne

= --Apple-Mail=_2191E4FF-314E-42B1-9463-6E471F7CAD0C-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 12:54:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B501A90D4 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:54:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 2-ASEG_fI1tS for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2DFE1A90D1 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:54:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id bs8so25930085wib.16 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:54:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Je5X0k8cq9cU9ayjPTwaDdZQ1vcm2WPBsggFcY0nIuA=; b=AxC6dx82wpi7rYWRT5IpJ3o2W1GfpV0q5mjaARuSNU8eEM7dXNt31qeI0qN1VU7Nue wRXZIq2scEljogUfx3q569qPB2Gob/GTnwOsNnYYHBD940n+mBhkCk+ezvGDJG+1xdbz u4er+4a+1/OoFe6+ZR5+gR+mFnesnPz7iQSZCTlWlnU69a7xGFMcBh++luVGp/lJ7n2i 09/agtYjO+JLn0mY8/I7vjGxN3lnA0Q9U9EkCPSEXbl1ThR5wDnQRyllysAm8sYVNLCz lZZwDJ4kqSFAhUnJTCEFhT42jA4mKF456gOluxUq+RN7UEhYBvNw7nyzNsMMMA1ed0fV 6Xgg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.3.2 with SMTP id 2mr97810803wjy.89.1417467264755; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:54:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:54:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343c18cbede005092dd019 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/nCCBOna8uCd0tliQgEmQTXpMw2Q Subject: [Dbound] Wider charter review X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 20:54:27 -0000 --047d7b343c18cbede005092dd019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Colleagues, Given the fact that the discussion of charter text appears to be converging, I propose to submit the charter to apps-discuss for further review and comment sometime tomorrow. If anyone feels this is premature, or there are serious outstanding issues, please say so soon. I'll assume everyone's fine with it unless I hear otherwise. This is not a statement about Olafur's suggestion. It or some variant of it can always be added before the charter actually goes before the IESG. I just want to get things moving here. -MSK --047d7b343c18cbede005092dd019 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colleagues,

Given the fact tha= t the discussion of charter text appears to be converging, I propose to sub= mit the charter to apps-discuss for further review and comment sometime tom= orrow.=C2=A0 If anyone feels this is premature, or there are serious outsta= nding issues, please say so soon.=C2=A0 I'll assume everyone's fine= with it unless I hear otherwise.

This is not a statement= about Olafur's suggestion.=C2=A0 It or some variant of it can always b= e added before the charter actually goes before the IESG.=C2=A0 I just want= to get things moving here.

-MSK
--047d7b343c18cbede005092dd019-- From nobody Mon Dec 1 15:45:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E181ACDE4 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:45:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 sOGVXR7wfqky for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:45:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24C31ACCC7 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:45:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4917 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2014 23:45:53 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2014 23:45:53 -0000 Date: 1 Dec 2014 23:45:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20141201234532.24629.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dbound@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/O44TWYamel0Nyq8QpJVTiDUjNh8 Cc: superuser@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text) X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:45:57 -0000 >I think Ed's point is that one could interpret this to mean "...so we need >to add it", versus "...so we need to find another way." Perhaps "so we may need to find another way." We have some proposals to put this stuff in the DNS, and we have some proposals to put it in other places. As I've said before, I don't think it's our job to attempt to prevent every possible misreading of our charter. We could say THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE DNS and some people would still demand that we first define a new rrtype. R's, John From nobody Tue Dec 2 09:00:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B921A1EF9; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:00:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 fBvCWI98X_bg; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 08:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AE5E1A1DFA; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 08:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id k14so17341006wgh.24 for ; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:59:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HDQ+B7JktLkI1GE4+qvkl8g2EtAtnzZbAT3yAAbdbrk=; b=ykti1KjdZThtq1yaeND3SoBTcGfnWPp0I/d8Qaj0eBfpAWx8cU9dYLJku2u3pwLfqE EYOBOwxFuxkulC27gz9bOx8aHE9m+OZp5W8u0kBT8RkxZDC3xW1cwV39FlObX+qoHnIA 6hYtScgijlKFHWzgiX9UacRp59hm2Lug2TywTbv4rFTYJ3CvscrZeX+5UyMJm8gMM9m/ JcZaf4s1CjIq4kI486V+qIGaggis8Q7oEOl81ubQmfc1oId3bYnrT1RD+ev1/+xmJ0Nk cJc50rN1z31Fm8r0lcMqi/6G30rfzDQZIzHhaBjlfjcv6mWuC1FiJ+wTW/m+i6Hv17+J c5zg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.211.201 with SMTP id ne9mr6705805wic.30.1417539595162; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 08:59:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 08:59:55 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: IETF Apps Discuss , dnsop@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c266d60659bd05093ea85a Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/GDnpgJPUBa4VmvdRZKQK7G5RL8k Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: [Dbound] Proposed charter for DBOUND WG X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:00:06 -0000 --001a11c266d60659bd05093ea85a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Colleagues, Below is a proposed charter for a working group we're calling DBOUND, which is seeking to solve the problem of finding a way to identify administrative/organizational boundaries in the domain namespace. We'd like to get some feedback from outside the team of people that's been working on it. For the sake of tracking the feedback, please reply only to apps-discuss@ietf.org with any comments you may have. -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair dbound charter Various Internet protocols and applications require some mechanism for determining whether two domain names are related. A popular example is the need to determine whether example.com and foo.example.com, or evenexample.net, are subject to the same administrative control. To humans, the answer to this may be obvious. However, the Domain Name System (DNS), which is the service that handles domain name queries, does not provide the ability to mark these sorts of relationships. This makes it impossible to discern relationships algorithmically. For example, the right answer is not always "compare the rightmost two labels". The particular issue is that applications and organizations impose policies and procedures that create additional structure in their use of domain names. This creates many possible relationships that are not evident in the names themselves or in the operational, public representation of the names. Prior solutions for identifying relationships between domain names have sought to use the DNS namespace and protocol to extract that information when it isn't actually there; the concept of an administrative boundary is by definition not present in the DNS. Relying on the DNS to divine administrative structure thus renders such solutions unreliable and unnecessarily constrained. For example, confirming or dismissing a relationship between two domain names based on the existence of a zone cut or common ancestry is often unfounded, and the notion of an upward "tree walk" as a search mechanism is considered unacceptable. For the purposes of this work, domain names are approached as identifiers used by organizations and services, independent of underlying protocols or mechanisms. Specifically, the work will not propose any changes to DNS protocols except the possible creation of new resource record types (RRTYPES). Furthermore, we define an "organizational domain" to be a name that is at the top of an administrative hierarchy, defining transition from one "outside" administrative authority to another that is "inside" the organization. Currently, the most well known solution in existence is the Public Suffix List (PSL). The PSL is maintained by a Web browser producer and is kept current by volunteers on a best-effort basis. It contains a list of points in the hierarchical namespace at which registrations take place, and is used to identify the boundary between so-called "public" names (below which registrations can occur) and the private names (i.e., organizational names) below them. When this list is inaccurate, it exposes a deviation from reality that degrades service to some and can be exploited by others. Being the de facto resource, and lacking a more comprehensive, alternative solution for relationship identification, the functionality of the PSL has often been misused to accomplish means beyond its capabilities. For example, there is no way to confirm the relationship between two domain names, only signal that there is or is not a public boundary between the two. Additionally, there are questions about the scalability, central management, and third-party management of the PSL as it currently exists. In terms of specific use cases: Within the realm of email, there is a desire to link an arbitrary fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) to the organizational domain name (at some point in the namespace above it), in order to identify a deterministic location where some sort of statement of policy regarding that FQDN can be found. With respect to the web, there is a similar need to identify relationships between different FQDNs, currently accomplished by comparing ancestries. However, there is also desire to reliably identify relationships outside of the realm and constraints of the namespace tree. Previous work such as Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP; RFC5617), and current work such as DMARC (draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base), would certainly benefit from having this capability. The DBOUND working group will develop one or more solutions to this family of problems. If possible, a unified solution will be developed. However, the working group may discover that the email, web, equivalence, and possibly other problems require independent solutions, in which case the working group will follow that path. The solutions may or may not involve changes to the DNS, such as creation of new resource record types; in any case, all such changes will be incremental only. This working group will not seek to amend the consuming protocols themselves (i.e., any web or mail standards) without rechartering, and only after completion of the base work. Any such work undertaken in parallel will eeed to be done as individual or independent submissions, or in another working group. Milestones: - TBD Co-chairs: - TBD --001a11c266d60659bd05093ea85a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colleagues,

Below is a propose= d charter for a working group we're calling DBOUND, which is seeking to= solve the problem of finding a way to identify administrative/organization= al boundaries in the domain namespace.=C2=A0 We'd like to get some feed= back from outside the team of people that's been working on it.

=
For the sake of tracking the feedback, please reply only to apps-discuss@ietf.org with any commen= ts you may have.

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

dbound cha=
rter

Various Internet protocols and applications require some mechanism for
determining whether two domain names are related.  A popular example is
the need to determine whether example.com and foo.example.com, or even
example.net, are subject to the same adm=
inistrative control.  To humans,
the answer to this may be obvious.  However, the Domain Name System (DNS),
which is the service that handles domain name queries, does not provide
the ability to mark these sorts of relationships.  This makes it
impossible to discern relationships algorithmically.  For example, the
right answer is not always "compare the rightmost two labels".

The particular issue is that applications and organizations impose
policies and procedures that create additional structure in their use of
domain names.  This creates many possible relationships that are not
evident in the names themselves or in the operational, public
representation of the names.

Prior solutions for identifying relationships between domain names
have sought to use the DNS namespace and protocol to extract that
information when it isn't actually there; the concept of an administrat=
ive
boundary is by definition not present in the DNS.  Relying on the DNS to=20
divine administrative structure thus renders such solutions unreliable and
unnecessarily constrained.  For example, confirming or dismissing a
relationship between two domain names based on the existence of a zone
cut or common ancestry is often unfounded, and the notion of an upward
"tree walk" as a search mechanism is considered unacceptable.

For the purposes of this work, domain names are approached as identifiers
used by organizations and services, independent of underlying protocols
or mechanisms.  Specifically, the work will not propose any changes to
DNS protocols except the possible creation of new resource record types
(RRTYPES).  Furthermore, we define an "organizational domain" to =
be a
name that is at the top of an administrative hierarchy, defining transition
from one "outside" administrative authority to another that is &q=
uot;inside" the
organization.

Currently, the most well known solution in existence is the Public Suffix
List (PSL).  The PSL is maintained by a Web browser producer and is kept
current by volunteers on a best-effort basis.  It contains a list of points
in the hierarchical namespace at which registrations take place, and is
used to identify the boundary between so-called "public" names (b=
elow which
registrations can occur) and the private names (i.e., organizational names)
below them.  When this list is inaccurate, it exposes a deviation from
reality that degrades service to some and can be exploited by others.  Bein=
g
the de facto resource, and lacking a more comprehensive, alternative soluti=
on
for relationship identification, the functionality of the PSL has often bee=
n
misused to accomplish means beyond its capabilities.  For example, there
is no way to confirm the relationship between two domain names, only
signal that there is or is not a public boundary between the two.
Additionally, there are questions about the scalability, central management=
,
and third-party management of the PSL as it currently exists.

In terms of specific use cases: Within the realm of email, there is a
desire to link an arbitrary fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) to the
organizational domain name (at some point in the namespace above it),
in order to identify a deterministic location where some sort of statement
of policy regarding that FQDN can be found.  With respect to the
web, there is a similar need to identify relationships between different
FQDNs, currently accomplished by comparing ancestries.  However, there
is also desire to reliably identify relationships outside of the realm
and constraints of the namespace tree.

Previous work such as Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP; RFC5617), and
current work such as DMARC (draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base), would certainly
benefit from having this capability.

The DBOUND working group will develop one or more solutions to this family
of problems.  If possible, a unified solution will be developed.  However,
the working group may discover that the email, web, equivalence, and
possibly other problems require independent solutions, in which case the
working group will follow that path.  The solutions may or may not involve
changes to the DNS, such as creation of new resource record types; in any
case, all such changes will be incremental only.

This working group will not seek to amend the consuming protocols themselve=
s
(i.e., any web or mail standards) without rechartering, and only after
completion of the base work.  Any such work undertaken in parallel will
eeed to be done as individual or independent submissions, or in another
working group.

Milestones:
- TBD

Co-chairs:
- TBD

--001a11c266d60659bd05093ea85a-- From nobody Tue Dec 2 15:24:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13D61A6FCD for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:23:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 bFfZ69Y5OBq5 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:23:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 449CA1A6FC8 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:23:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n12so18316041wgh.6 for ; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:23:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=E/VsmujrK7MFYwRspN9S0tQIjw3KY0qSTP06W2JKhA0=; b=kmpTXRDqiaO4ZeCFx1llFqc4hSWKZcJs7pcRk3o4dTncjcorxXi6G89sK38fCk6JOr lced/qotSfHyIz41rUMD8NNUAWWA/Hp4/L/a7hbplOkIGjMhFAhHHWoNAAUPXn/eN7pv Bw7nurP/4MvtGXt4XnYcaDO4upsMiwJeUdtoRQl1f3dTS15ynd4ZgUXJv8BGzBjzvP/8 rFXlUgmfDz76V9Ly/muRgMDgjlpuJRLcMsOmVVndTcTRbelvnBOnmKkIB7fzS4a1KqJw yeYYlgWcNqOLzL57raP37hXjL21/f8c+QdXqp3P0U5fFrMfZ5JzIhhCBv+oAjtbHi/Am EQ7g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.76.80 with SMTP id i16mr54153903wiw.61.1417562626028; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:23:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:23:45 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7d0ac57cf7050944045d Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/W3Lm-wbgzv3qgiKKlPi_zN4RVq0 Subject: [Dbound] drafts? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 23:23:52 -0000 --f46d043c7d0ac57cf7050944045d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Charters often refer to drafts that are possibly starting points for a new working group. Are the drafts in Jeff Hodges' repository far enough along that they might be posted to the datatracker and thus made reference-able by our charter? -MSK --f46d043c7d0ac57cf7050944045d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Charters often refer to drafts that are possibly star= ting points for a new working group.

Are the drafts in Jeff Hodges&#= 39; repository far enough along that they might be posted to the datatracke= r and thus made reference-able by our charter?

-MSK
--f46d043c7d0ac57cf7050944045d-- From nobody Tue Dec 2 16:04:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD211A1AA4 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 16:04:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.232 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 wedPl8ep1ypG for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 16:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 13A821A8799 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 16:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 9225 invoked by uid 0); 3 Dec 2014 00:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2014 00:04:06 -0000 Received: from box514.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.114]) by cmgw3 with id No411p00W2UhLwi01o44mX; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:04:06 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=W++rC3mk c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=9W6Fsu4pMcyimqnCr1W0/w==:117 a=9W6Fsu4pMcyimqnCr1W0/w==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=xk8Vn6ZJdw4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=ieNpE_y6AAAA:8 a=XYUc-DgfXtMA:10 a=SojtekhEa5wA:10 a=A92cGCtB03wA:10 a=nU5PrZoTXEBmp0EoT4UA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=GR8-zfIHcOQA:10 a=CyFrqVYqE6MA:10 a=LhEOE7n9Sq8A:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Z8M4ck75B4BejHoxolGOP/qWpT+JnN2/ihfg4uVkWRo=; b=CnNeUtJcaSZCmA4ePF0riLU9Jrg/L+jq19CuYbGLVxZwNd+9eQMOQmvet97Wc8DXo9VhNYlxEtDQqNrekHKYeo1Ns9B5ZC5u0SGdvpd771mqUWQHUIpvzgh8GECGuP+y; Received: from [216.113.160.66] (port=18608 helo=[10.244.137.167]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XvxQH-0003It-6d for dbound@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:04:01 -0700 Message-ID: <547E536C.7030007@KingsMountain.com> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:03:56 -0800 From: =JeffH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dbound@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.160.66 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/uXwjGVAvcGJdujxgTjdW58ZKBI4 Subject: Re: [Dbound] Wider charter review X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:04:13 -0000 Murray, all, THANKS much for moving this along. unfortunately my day job and family and thanksgiving have been all-consuming since IETF-91. I hope to surface by next mid-next week at latest to contrib to these threads on the list here. Tho will review charter in near term (on apps-discuss@ per request). HTH, =JeffH From nobody Wed Dec 3 05:52:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955891A1AE3 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:52:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 r_nMaj9rNOXk for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:52:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E0E61A1B2C for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:52:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hl2so12753237igb.5 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 05:52:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=vuGsIzQy5TFgwo9izmxhaqPWRtqqCAya0msZNP24VRs=; b=due7340V250MO2q68s5Z7flUqzs5qHKwEdYfIk9a+V6/FPvow5yVSiYc0/fLgAxX6V Dc4gqd3TajnMWVgNpSs1zM8JBBRqpe/QiqLIsEW2YbPT0Qw6Du/OTDZISpN/2XrTifQW 6yLcFb1aAa02Skv7TK9js/O4r2kqiHbjgcx90= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=vuGsIzQy5TFgwo9izmxhaqPWRtqqCAya0msZNP24VRs=; b=G4XRiF+3RDoxem+SkwiNc3mvqP3Otvqvhrn/6luA7FuUsv4x1QrKhAxfZuR9QaiYX2 ujBcIRBGb9nLJepTKqIXbGiBDRqW8InyUlf9mt5e11BnPv+0plNhzNccdqmt062B5vkx HTs8JovNTDl2grhb0QP/7qBbIkUf2roskXofDprxvYvUt8CART+q7R4z2ghbYIsPXVpb R2zrueGk6MGcqfDd2fJxNn+mxgOZjaQfj61gCfyvCVcOBZMNIk78MXG36U3GqLLTib1q Ymvo7DevPbr8H9KDt2zlgjLNloUqUxD7mk4sCRaXsPFvJQdXI9nXDHMpqmM6LyQpA1If NEgA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnpbfCy2RXAlwdX9D4gZjqYyByu7gxgnvWGarM54udcVG0xsiDZAGzAJv71RM6Pv9Z1Fd2O MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.29.3 with SMTP id f3mr54252958igh.23.1417614727507; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 05:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.47.12 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 05:52:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 08:52:07 -0500 Message-ID: From: Casey Deccio To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd74b54430d2d05095026b1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/ABgJZRu_YkFaQr6gqYWzQMTp1dM Subject: Re: [Dbound] drafts? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:52:13 -0000 --047d7bd74b54430d2d05095026b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Charters often refer to drafts that are possibly starting points for a new working group. Are the drafts in Jeff Hodges' repository far enough along that they might be posted to the datatracker and thus made reference-able by our charter? I volunteered at the DBOUND meeting in Honolulu to take the responsibility for putting together the problem statement draft, using previous text from others and myself. There are edits yet to be made to address comments/discussion from the mailing list and the meeting. These edits might or might not make the 00, but will certainly be addressed shortly thereafter in the 01. I'll try to have the draft out within the day. Thanks, Casey --047d7bd74b54430d2d05095026b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 2,= 2014, at 6:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
Charters often refer to drafts that are possibly starting poi= nts for a new working group.

Are the drafts in Jeff Hodges' repo= sitory far enough along that they might be posted to the datatracker and th= us made=C2=A0reference-able by our charter?

=
I volunteered at the DBOUND meeti= ng in Honolulu to take the responsibility for putting together the problem = statement draft, using previous text from others and myself.=C2=A0 There ar= e edits yet to be made to address comments/discussion from the mailing list= and the meeting.=C2=A0 These edits might or might not make the 00, but wil= l certainly be addressed shortly thereafter in the 01.=C2=A0 I'll try t= o have the draft out within the day.

Thanks,
Casey
--047d7bd74b54430d2d05095026b1-- From nobody Wed Dec 3 12:17:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313F31A1BE9 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:17:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 gx8d6Kv5PsRZ for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:17:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3101A1B85 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:17:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id y19so20861446wgg.28 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:17:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pCU7cof4U+cMv/9H3cokhqQqDdHzzvITPcnOgesGLxQ=; b=Dg3xn3/IfC0wA3PuGtgZCXXwska3mFswx/Gd/eXiHLbbaHaoASlSusyxm4bD0Pq25/ axV4X88uuxNSlO5ohIQqJFwL+84Jw0CuqL2SQLgYfv31nGCJzzh2/dF3b/EJ9cdhr6fa ewurmhq7WwfaFBlnGOxgQhlB0vMl0SeAQTKPt7jLoEh7UfiOsNcePIW3aaH8BmtSeT7Q B5t3Y1rdQDZo+AqANbevyokeUY0ouD896QsfStGgFrPo1PjpaTbTtjC3SHA4X0Z4Ojhh CwQE++xf8BFS0pGX6k16i4BjuztO468F8YGig/KlPxK1sSlaqoYaRiV8cBdS1CTYldf4 qmAQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.75.199 with SMTP id e7mr105083627wiw.21.1417637830565; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:17:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:17:10 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Casey Deccio Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043895774fa6030509558786 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/2_AS3UbvyLor9vyfXkqKidK8CbU Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] drafts? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:17:14 -0000 --f46d043895774fa6030509558786 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Are either of the actual proposal drafts in good enough shape to post? On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Casey Deccio wrote: > On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > > Charters often refer to drafts that are possibly starting points for a new > working group. > > Are the drafts in Jeff Hodges' repository far enough along that they might > be posted to the datatracker and thus made reference-able by our charter? > > > I volunteered at the DBOUND meeting in Honolulu to take the responsibility > for putting together the problem statement draft, using previous text from > others and myself. There are edits yet to be made to address > comments/discussion from the mailing list and the meeting. These edits > might or might not make the 00, but will certainly be addressed shortly > thereafter in the 01. I'll try to have the draft out within the day. > > Thanks, > Casey > > _______________________________________________ > Dbound mailing list > Dbound@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound > > --f46d043895774fa6030509558786 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Are either of the actual proposal drafts in good enough sh= ape to post?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net>= wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at= 6:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
Charters often refer to drafts that are possibly starting points for a= new working group.

Are the drafts in Jeff Hodges' repository fa= r enough along that they might be posted to the datatracker and thus made= =C2=A0reference-able by our charter?

<= /span>
I volunteered at the DBOUND meeti= ng in Honolulu to take the responsibility for putting together the problem = statement draft, using previous text from others and myself.=C2=A0 There ar= e edits yet to be made to address comments/discussion from the mailing list= and the meeting.=C2=A0 These edits might or might not make the 00, but wil= l certainly be addressed shortly thereafter in the 01.=C2=A0 I'll try t= o have the draft out within the day.

Thanks,
Casey

_______________________________________________
Dbound mailing list
Dbound@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound


--f46d043895774fa6030509558786-- From nobody Wed Dec 3 12:26:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CFA1AC39E for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 iCfb2L2nWMhv for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60E6E1A1BB4 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB3KQ6SM024021 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:26:19 -0800 Message-ID: <547F71D7.7060007@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:25:59 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , Casey Deccio References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:26:20 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/ClIkgejB_YANJADLCgGBQ9dIEhA Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] drafts? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:26:25 -0000 On 12/3/2014 12:17 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Are either of the actual proposal drafts in good enough shape to post? As 'input' to working group discussions, they are fine as they are. As 'initial draft wg documents' they are almost certainly not (yet). d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Thu Dec 4 12:11:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4061A1A57 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:11:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 UVho2Q_2wR6d for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79F071A1A82 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z12so23836359wgg.15 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=23Y5HR0aT0t3N5nWA/S/RRHipA9TRObDRtfoIA3csZA=; b=Mfc6ypdCQUt6XamJjRpuquQryhy9XFVxyk9RisYY6UzZ0HvsxReTwwgDnBRjIAdeAB bm6pMBPCIhT0Ff5Od+LcQuxYhKkVSdapKRic8xrxJp1xGbPk0E2L6U1KC0YBb1BglrH2 THRmCOeKFiZMXXIZjXXmrnxPe4g4aCdgxatYqmoWnPiiaDXexJouoHTwwD1GbZ1pMzxy tSwEj6VUCoXIVY8Bb0rlnjIfjDddr26uSWGCyV/LkhZQ2+ITOpC0kQZuaKBwpUcXpol4 dDackHEdZzckY8FShQYntZCloYC0Cu4RJADUknLmG3h+8EWYWwyHy2aDfqlP5D0CVRGo x5uQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.75.199 with SMTP id e7mr113247478wiw.21.1417723808133; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04389577f9369f0509698be4 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/b_ANgGFgRAE9ZS9C2-hrIlXBebk Subject: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:11:09 -0000 --f46d04389577f9369f0509698be4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So far the feedback about the charter has said approximately nothing negative at all about the definition problem space or the deliverables, and only complained that it's too long because there's too much background. I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with much. I think all of the text we have either explains the problem or constrains our activity by describing what we know won't work. Anyone have any suggestions? -MSK --f46d04389577f9369f0509698be4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So far the feedback about the charter has said approx= imately nothing negative at all about the definition problem space or the d= eliverables, and only complained that it's too long because there's= too much background.

I'll take a swing at trimming it, bu= t I'm not sure I can come up with much.=C2=A0 I think all of the text w= e have either explains the problem or constrains our activity by describing= what we know won't work.

Anyone have any suggestions?

-M= SK
--f46d04389577f9369f0509698be4-- From nobody Thu Dec 4 12:25:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8521A1AE2 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:25:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 oFlDS7HcW1Iz for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:25:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CCCB1A1AE5 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:25:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x19so16499143ier.27 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:25:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IUb/8qwGyN4p5KEKl874AcZT//0Gmoy8Y4U29fPjXGE=; b=Lmc///EBWGSvwHycHun0KxJV4caoaNST9PXC87C+oSov1U4qed4GHX4FFK0JsetoDt 3755YAsHGcgoM1A4KTlFMv6zbK+s7S8rhOfI7+LUp5MuvuXJj1lRpOphscIhgArMxEOH YWAXEQqDGBWs7ChjRjF9YGuIW9BTEaP6ZtYiQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=IUb/8qwGyN4p5KEKl874AcZT//0Gmoy8Y4U29fPjXGE=; b=XlxG3VdAdOF4c+dEX9mShwhZsQSjs4y0VHle44A8aykcKTQRwH94ohB7CiypSOQ8gp P3jLTmI6t37DmvegFsR2BJ+PafAtFtMp8X97iRTyyRSAulmbYIxN7Yz6lTRi56HlLzmZ YZbAnErPvJR4rz7fDzwibMEEzq3LBl5yLmarfw7cPZo/TFkKO7YPsAYKdFv4PcuED50t 4U64gIXEK9HcNaZwHzsh2l709n54M9RN9l/DFqM08FtBd54dhxunWYgZgIuD2NmF2xYW 3l0IKM5vbr4mUArWePBhg1wOQGYhnsz8GkUgzU12FrLmQ2ljdyVsXBkrhQvAZZK3Vz2T /Vww== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7y5S4O70Q+qixw3Ky1eXmOoo72YNK/nPdk+xrWcLaUDgYb+QI163YPlFwD/vjWLk1SN5d MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.29.3 with SMTP id f3mr7817igh.23.1417724729289; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:25:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.47.12 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:25:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:25:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: Casey Deccio To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd74b54e10723050969c2a4 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/LwtdmgNKCrpKOnLW6XV3gHvBsLs Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:25:32 -0000 --047d7bd74b54e10723050969c2a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > So far the feedback about the charter has said approximately nothing > negative at all about the definition problem space or the deliverables, and > only complained that it's too long because there's too much background. > > I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with > much. I think all of the text we have either explains the problem or > constrains our activity by describing what we know won't work. > > Anyone have any suggestions? > I can get integrate the text more suitable for a background/problem statement into the problem statement draft that is under revision (and I haven't yet posted as a 00), so it can be referenced from the charter, making the charter less noisy. Casey --047d7bd74b54e10723050969c2a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <su= peruser@gmail.com> wrote:
= So far the feedback about the charter has said approximately nothing negati= ve at all about the definition problem space or the deliverables, and only = complained that it's too long because there's too much background.<= br>
I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I c= an come up with much.=C2=A0 I think all of the text we have either explains= the problem or constrains our activity by describing what we know won'= t work.

Anyone have any suggestions?

I c= an get integrate the text more suitable for a background/problem statement = into the problem statement draft that is under revision (and I haven't = yet posted as a 00), so it can be referenced from the charter, making the c= harter less noisy.

Casey
--047d7bd74b54e10723050969c2a4-- From nobody Thu Dec 4 20:00:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FC61AC39A for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 20:00:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 bHMmWIg8XkNd for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 20:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DC141ABD3D for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 20:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB540RiK019180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 4 Dec 2014 20:00:32 -0800 Message-ID: <54812DCE.4010509@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:00:14 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Casey Deccio , "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:00:33 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/hm-KhA3wvD01p5m4UxjuKfwTWB4 Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 04:00:41 -0000 On 12/4/2014 12:25 PM, Casey Deccio wrote: > I can get integrate the text more suitable for a background/problem > statement into the problem statement draft that is under revision (and I > haven't yet posted as a 00), so it can be referenced from the charter, > making the charter less noisy. Please do not do that. Charters have two different purposes. One is essentially as a work contract between the working group and the IETF, stating scope, schedule and deliverables. But the other purpose is to recruit participants. If you require potential participants to go search for other text before they can understand the basic problem being tackled, they won't bother. For wide benefit, a charter needs to be sufficient as a standalone document. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Thu Dec 4 22:33:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02231AC439 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 22:33:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 G12eAhaBZe_6 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 22:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2D71AC437 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 22:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6B632E56A; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:32:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 291b_72ef_69853c1e_0b0c_432c_b390_43cdc0678e37; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:32:45 +0900 Received: from [133.2.210.64] (unknown [133.2.210.64]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F11FBF53F; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:32:45 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <5481518B.4050007@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:32:43 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "dbound@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/N9FgX20zmjg9Ztceongm64wFvJE Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:33:33 -0000 Hello Murray, On 2014/12/05 05:10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > So far the feedback about the charter has said approximately nothing > negative at all about the definition problem space or the deliverables, and > only complained that it's too long because there's too much background. > > I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with > much. Please do. Every line less is a win. > I think all of the text we have either explains the problem or > constrains our activity by describing what we know won't work. > > Anyone have any suggestions? Often there is explicit and implicit duplication between the problem space definition and the deliverables, which can be eliminated. Regards, Martin. From nobody Fri Dec 5 06:35:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B121A897C for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 06:35:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 ARGQ4AwJFNT7 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 06:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EA21A8973 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 06:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB5EZn0K031055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 06:35:52 -0800 Message-ID: <5481C2BA.9050604@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:35:38 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= References: <5481518B.4050007@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <5481518B.4050007@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:35:52 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/l67UyrIF9AXY-bwUfibz88xLH6U Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:35:54 -0000 On 12/4/2014 10:32 PM, "Martin J. Drst" wrote: >> I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with >> much. > > Please do. Every line less is a win. I'm curious about the basis for claiming this. Will it improve working group functioning? Will it improve wg participation recruitment? What will be the significant operational benefit? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Dec 5 10:04:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F416A1A1EFC for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:04:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 JBTkAPaxfKyK for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 579601ACEF2 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n12so1558480wgh.34 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:04:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=J9N7MhJTlEjBjFtS2/3/mjfnC78DiUasXddAjy2kuT0=; b=UTFE40YKcipXThhj2FNomVfqujbfV8wbbztkm4j1Ni7a1AeACHbrRKbMGko9gvpYEw rJy4iX0qbCGl8awmeb++VC3B1WUnviX8D2+nQI12K0chTP4Kvu8g09DZ5oei4AdsA+Ho HadpoevBa6unyLdTIt3vJXqFJm6TlN3Hum+7Q= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=J9N7MhJTlEjBjFtS2/3/mjfnC78DiUasXddAjy2kuT0=; b=lYeO91pVrpX0JeC/yedNIR9qNsi57IOQxXq9UZ7jB2qZUOVusX+q9xxfknddvbQ+Wu HnAn5qwRISble14gPQucnt9x/3MZffd774gUeQ+1+88hKBtxL9h66SRV6waLvo3XvZbO j4YtRQeaLz8BOfdAzApfTMpXY0LkmgSOPI89njqNtM+5FHheQ8Im6a97LzAkp8sfpJcF 7jqX1+LHpWrFemP4DU4XW3rh1o0ry/+EGK7ukexqt+GLNKlwuzMtkVdRCVD5zhk9FhJt GTWSqfivhY7mmlU3bxfkslrlgUjHQim8ueeaB+vc9ZeAgFLv60rjjvH4fIfR5EbfH0pb YZmg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnyTYcqf8yVn65dh8+xoWDEj3t36Y/ouX8j0rPDn4ezSlpGwIPH5EoKSg/zXToJvr86U7Y4 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.211.84 with SMTP id na20mr6013857wic.41.1417802658515; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:04:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 10.194.41.161 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:04:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54812DCE.4010509@dcrocker.net> References: <54812DCE.4010509@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:04:18 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TMwaqrisDaUO5QNK0Jz8peGHIuw Message-ID: From: Kurt Andersen To: Dave Crocker , "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38c78d2ad3505097be779 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/NN3qT99XNENMAhgfL5mL0_-XaJQ Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:04:22 -0000 --001a11c38c78d2ad3505097be779 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/4/2014 12:25 PM, Casey Deccio wrote: > > I can get integrate the text more suitable for a background/problem > > statement into the problem statement draft that is under revision (and I > > haven't yet posted as a 00), so it can be referenced from the charter, > > making the charter less noisy. > > Please do not do that. > > Charters have two different purposes . . . > > But the other purpose is to recruit participants. If you require > potential participants to go search for other text before they can > understand the basic problem being tackled, they won't bother. > > For wide benefit, a charter needs to be sufficient as a standalone > document. > I agree with this. Having the charter be as self-contained as possible is a significant benefit. Given the linguistic contortions that we went through to explain what DBOUND is about, I am in favor of sticking with the charter largely as proposed without any major removals. We can have a more verbose, independent though related problem statement that helps to explore the problem space, but I think that taking any of the components out of this proposed charter would be a net negative change. --Kurt --001a11c38c78d2ad3505097be779 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker= .net> wrote:
On 12/4/2014 12:25= PM, Casey Deccio wrote:
> I can get integrate the text more suitable for a background/problem > statement into the problem statement draft that is under revision (and= I
> haven't yet posted as a 00), so it can be referenced from the char= ter,
> making the charter less noisy.

Please do not do that.

Charters have two different purposes=C2=A0 . . .

But the other purpose is to recruit participants.=C2=A0 If you require
potential participants to go search for other text before they can
understand the basic problem being tackled, they won't bother.

For wide benefit, a charter needs to be sufficient as a standalone document= .

I agree with this. Having the charter be as self-co= ntained as possible is a significant benefit. Given the linguistic contorti= ons that we went through to explain what DBOUND is about, I am in favor of = sticking with the charter largely as proposed without any major removals. <= br>
We can have a more verbose, independent though related problem state= ment that helps to explore the problem space, but I think that taking any o= f the components out of this proposed charter would be a net negative chang= e.

--Kurt

--001a11c38c78d2ad3505097be779-- From nobody Fri Dec 5 11:17:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC511ACE9C for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:17:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Jky1UHkiiszf for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B23B1A1E0B for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15413 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2014 19:17:09 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2014 19:17:09 -0000 Date: 5 Dec 2014 19:16:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20141205191649.36690.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dbound@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5481C2BA.9050604@dcrocker.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/Y-cYr71RmTXFbUIPAGAWQmo_ESc Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:17:14 -0000 >What will be the significant operational benefit? tl;dr This cuts both ways, of course. R's, John PS: You'll not I'm not asking for charter changes. From nobody Fri Dec 5 22:42:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0AF1A07BD for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:42:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 67Ch4swXzEA7 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:42:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0F9C1A1AB8 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:42:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4068; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417848155; x=1419057755; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=13394QHkADXL8fBE8cM/5bWG2TCiYnp9NAjFawLN0W4=; b=LVjn/nn3RrR/7xFA3SHeHHQLuQ5IRMJXM4uynsOfmSv2a8hHrkzhWkxK Vf92luqQU0Byb8T6INZzuwkyQ0+h1DLrldUhsRC6eI8M0BmAay85gsw/Q CoRMG5/3L4kTCV7JlGUD6M70Rj9TurcA4L3f9kawYk1RLSSzKpwehg8C2 M=; X-Files: signature.asc : 486 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtAEAM2kglStJssW/2dsb2JhbABZhzXJZgKBJwEBAQEBfYQDAQEEI2YLBBQJIQICDwJGBgEMCAEBiDe+Y5ZWAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBARqQVoJvgUcBBJE1gTWGdYZvjFCDcD6CcwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,528,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="263343923" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2014 06:42:33 +0000 Received: from [10.61.66.106] (ams3-vpn-dhcp618.cisco.com [10.61.66.106]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB66gXlI019422; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 06:42:33 GMT Message-ID: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:32 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "dbound@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3AQXPitgTCuVf2dNwghK1mN955O8Qp04A" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/jfg3RGLyWqZRioiY1FCbGaT8238 Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 06:42:37 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --3AQXPitgTCuVf2dNwghK1mN955O8Qp04A Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010606090101000702060602" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010606090101000702060602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Murray, On 12/4/14, 9:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > So far the feedback about the charter has said approximately nothing > negative at all about the definition problem space or the > deliverables, and only complained that it's too long because there's > too much background. > > I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with > much. I think all of the text we have either explains the problem or > constrains our activity by describing what we know won't work. > > Anyone have any suggestions? > I think the text is really just good enough, with one possible exception. You point to a list of documents as possible starting points. My experience is that it saves a whole lot of time and effort if the organizers can consolidate their work into a single proposal as a starting point, perhaps with a handful of open design questions. It's not always possible, but if you don't you have to establish rough consensus for which one to move forward with. Eliot --------------010606090101000702060602 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Murray,

On 12/4/14, 9:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
So far the feedback about the charter has said approximately nothing negative at all about the definition problem space or the deliverables, and only complained that it's too long because there's too much background.

I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with much.=C2=A0 I think all of the text we have either explains = the problem or constrains our activity by describing what we know won't work.

Anyone have any suggestions?


I think the text is really just good enough, with one possible exception.=C2=A0 You point to a list of documents as possible startin= g points.=C2=A0 My experience is that it saves a whole lot of time and effort if the organizers can consolidate their work into a single proposal as a starting point, perhaps with a handful of open design questions.=C2=A0 It's not always possible, but if you don't you have = to establish rough consensus for which one to move forward with.

Eliot

--------------010606090101000702060602-- --3AQXPitgTCuVf2dNwghK1mN955O8Qp04A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUgqVZAAoJEIe2a0bZ0noz/hwIALtQVH6WOazjA2Td0uS1T17l QZ0T00f1ehjyb130BgEfRPaTxhaN23P9XuDmp1QeKuD0TCyD52rnjkoc0PLV5Buk e15SLgs+OtGvPTp8aID9MRd/g+eG9AxXVwfk8Qj1MLKSOS4twDdIDF0JLr2RCBvV vdZddJYmbjc50dW/y/oou0Ikbd2soxCZ2or7Nwa9M46joceSVEOR3aJB0Bzbfb+R 2lWQjEx4WyyGmLR3njbBmYjoI2RGcfOL73dQc1RscPKWmHQ3260uawqTNJCVk0Wl ZEqs0lelSXalqDyOTPmYjNeIWFY+G+XmHD7pU3Mo8Xql1cDowNaW+aPfLR+QXsA= =HDRz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3AQXPitgTCuVf2dNwghK1mN955O8Qp04A-- From nobody Sun Dec 7 01:18:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A31E1A1BDA for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 01:18:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.899 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 UevSSSJFlA9p for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 01:18:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B191A1AF6 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 01:18:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288F932E554; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 18:18:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 39cc_36c3_4041c43f_1a7a_42ec_8411_39e64e2d0e29; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:18:08 +0900 Received: from [133.2.249.139] (unknown [133.2.249.139]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56635BF511; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 18:18:08 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <54841B4E.8010603@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:18:06 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <5481518B.4050007@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <5481C2BA.9050604@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5481C2BA.9050604@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/2JxkV40nlzaZkjyYFg1CNjA3XWs Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:18:54 -0000 [just for the record] On 2014/12/05 23:35, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/4/2014 10:32 PM, "Martin J. D=C3=BCrst" wrote: >>> I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with >>> much. >> >> Please do. Every line less is a win. > I'm curious about the basis for claiming this. Of course this doesn't work in isolation. Otherwise, a charter of 0=20 lines would be best, but that's obviously not going to work. > Will it improve working group functioning? Concisely described deliverables and concisely described "out of bounds"=20 items should indeed improve working group functioning. > Will it improve wg > participation recruitment? A shorter, easier to read charter should be more inviting for potential=20 participants. In addition, shorter text helps people who's mother tongue=20 is not English. Regards, Martin. > What will be the significant operational benefit? > > d/ > From nobody Sun Dec 7 05:03:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034A21A875A for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:03:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no 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 K7RAqzujG_2o for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A16711A86EB for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.115.135.78] (unknown [118.143.13.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FD5A8A038; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) In-Reply-To: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:03:07 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <35E8861D-8F6B-415A-A8D8-3D3972EDBCD9@anvilwalrusden.com> References: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/flHA1JLs4RATUF9CKFtK_YPQ_MM Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:03:14 -0000 The problem with "single proposal" in this case is that the different use ca= ses appear not to be amenable to a single solution.=20 A --=20 Andrew Sullivan=20 Please excuse my clumbsy thums.=20 > On Dec 6, 2014, at 14:42, Eliot Lear wrote: >=20 > Hi Murray, >=20 >> On 12/4/14, 9:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> So far the feedback about the charter has said approximately nothing nega= tive at all about the definition problem space or the deliverables, and only= complained that it's too long because there's too much background. >>=20 >> I'll take a swing at trimming it, but I'm not sure I can come up with muc= h. I think all of the text we have either explains the problem or constrain= s our activity by describing what we know won't work. >>=20 >> Anyone have any suggestions? >=20 > I think the text is really just good enough, with one possible exception. = You point to a list of documents as possible starting points. My experienc= e is that it saves a whole lot of time and effort if the organizers can cons= olidate their work into a single proposal as a starting point, perhaps with a= handful of open design questions. It's not always possible, but if you don= 't you have to establish rough consensus for which one to move forward with.= >=20 > Eliot >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dbound mailing list > Dbound@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound From nobody Sun Dec 7 08:40:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FAB1A1A23 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:40:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 n2SBAYY3VpeH for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 900F21A1A11 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB7Gdsif031260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:40:00 -0800 Message-ID: <548482CE.5000005@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:39:42 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dbound@ietf.org" References: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> <35E8861D-8F6B-415A-A8D8-3D3972EDBCD9@anvilwalrusden.com> In-Reply-To: <35E8861D-8F6B-415A-A8D8-3D3972EDBCD9@anvilwalrusden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:40:00 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/70d4GuvRMN5yIoRF8VfWnMOe0Dc Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:40:02 -0000 On 12/7/2014 5:03 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > The problem with "single proposal" in this case is that the different use cases appear not to be amenable to a single solution. Folks, While we've had discussion of use cases and the charter makes quick reference to some examples, I'm not sure we've established a nice, representative sample of concrete and detailed existing (or desired) use cases for everyone to use at a collective target. The PSL establishes one, very clear and strong use case, of course. While it's obviously well-established I, personally, don't adequately understand the nature and details of the web cross-domain name-equivalence one well enough. Careful uses cases can greatly help wg participants and potential adopters get a shared understanding of goals and scope. It could help to develop detailed text that specifies a number (3-5?) of scenarios that we are seeking to satisfy, stated in largely non-technical terms and from the perspective of usage, covering who, what and why, but not how. The charter isn't the place for this, except as tersely as the current draft already does, and I don't think it requires a standalone document, longer term. Still it could be useful to develop it as a draft now, later perhaps merging it into a foundational document. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Sun Dec 7 12:35:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1C91A88AC for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:35:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 TrVVIeK02Meh for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F08031A88A3 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:35:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 22674 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2014 20:35:31 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2014 20:35:31 -0000 Date: 7 Dec 2014 20:35:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20141207203512.5780.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dbound@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <548482CE.5000005@dcrocker.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/X8D1nmVvWBsU6BbMQ0NBg6Qai0o Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [Dbound] usage cases, was Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:35:38 -0000 >While we've had discussion of use cases and the charter makes quick >reference to some examples, I'm not sure we've established a nice, >representative sample of concrete and detailed existing (or desired) use >cases for everyone to use at a collective target. We haven't. I thought we were trying to do that a couple of months ago but we seem to have gotten distracted. It appears to be very hard for people to describe use cases without immediately diving into solutions, or into restatements of the problem that assume particular approaches to solutions. R's, John From nobody Sun Dec 7 12:53:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BD11A88D4 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:53:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 uXxJnpW3au3u for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7881A88CC for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB7Kr6Ur004625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:53:16 -0800 Message-ID: <5484BE26.9010705@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:52:54 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= , dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <5481518B.4050007@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <5481C2BA.9050604@dcrocker.net> <54841B4E.8010603@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <54841B4E.8010603@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:53:16 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/C9zRGhW7DgOx91XuFCZ1CzbJhZU Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:53:18 -0000 On 12/7/2014 1:18 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > > A shorter, easier to read charter should be more inviting for potential > participants. In addition, shorter text helps people who's mother tongue > is not English. There is a balance needed between conciseness and completeness. For example, a nice, short charter that assumes too much prior knowledge for the reader is a less effective charter, if soliciting outside folk is a goal, no matter their native tongue. I've sent some suggestions to Murray, to makes things just a little bit shorter. But not significantly. If you have specific suggestions, please also send them in. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Sun Dec 7 13:15:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA0B1A8969 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:15:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no 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 VUWJeZ3siMU8 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:15:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45DA21A8966 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [118.143.13.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44F078A035 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 16:14:50 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dbound@ietf.org Message-ID: <20141207211447.GB21472@mx1.yitter.info> References: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> <35E8861D-8F6B-415A-A8D8-3D3972EDBCD9@anvilwalrusden.com> <548482CE.5000005@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <548482CE.5000005@dcrocker.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/5j0jMtgmUMkC1vu77GrdmfvPERU Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:15:01 -0000 On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:39:42AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/7/2014 5:03 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > The PSL establishes one, very clear and strong use case, of course. > While it's obviously well-established I, personally, don't adequately > understand the nature and details of the web cross-domain > name-equivalence one well enough. Careful uses cases can greatly help wg > participants and potential adopters get a shared understanding of goals > and scope. I suspect the reason you don't understand that is because, as near as I can tell, nobody does. At bottom that observation is what motivated me to start work on this problem some time ago. In the large, the issue is that any use of the PSL reads from assertions (about certain parts of the hierarchy and the in-protocol administrative boundaries of the DNS) some security properties of services operated at a given DNS name or pair of names. The precise security properties being inferred vary somewhat depending on what is being done, what the developer who created the code thought the important set of threats were, and sometimes the settings the user has selected in the client software. But the pairwise relationship is, in every case, the actual decision that is being made (even when that is not the way it's implemented today because of the way the PSL works). Moreover, "web security people" (i.e. on the web security list) tell me that the proposals we've discussed so far will never be useful for the same-origin policy, because to do a same-origin comparison you need port information too. I find this claim completely mystifying, because in the PSL you don't have that port information, so I don't understand where this requirement comes from. That suggests to me that the details of the same-origin policy are actually murky to the people who assert what its properties are. I have tried very carefully to avoid the term "equivalence" in whatever I've written about this, because it's a word that just invites confusion. But I suspect it'll be hard to get away from due to the "same origin policy" name. I have no idea whether any of that background helps, but I thought it might allow some others to see what is motivating at least my thinking on some of this. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Sun Dec 7 13:28:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE381A8976 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:28:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 zsAc8hjWLnZc for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:28:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C34B1A8974 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:28:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1959; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417987705; x=1419197305; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=wlZ9JVMbo+beyk7iP1ifnEB7FW8tkDPIShicN7xQsDk=; b=IduwljLJep/gc8Y9qEO5ZC/QiMpvrjUegarAQ4fqOSNFgZq6cz3aqONy cE/Vi53GnCl3CzIp8+5c7aI+nXP26cS/kEpiMlAwW6Oe1HkDJgTawiRCt ACC7IBjkUXRASBYwP+sum588vwHqW5pl12K7/MY8kAYux3nzF/Ld429C5 c=; X-Files: signature.asc : 486 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAHfFhFStJssW/2dsb2JhbABag1hYgwXDC4YbAoEoAQEBAQF9hAMBAQQjVRELDgoJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwIAQGIN74/lXUBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEbkFaCb4FHAQSRNYE1WoYbgVaFGYxQg3A+MIJDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,534,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="265478921" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2014 21:28:23 +0000 Received: from [10.61.211.29] ([10.61.211.29]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB7LSNfA008598; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:28:23 GMT Message-ID: <5484C676.2060103@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:28:22 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Sullivan , dbound@ietf.org References: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> <35E8861D-8F6B-415A-A8D8-3D3972EDBCD9@anvilwalrusden.com> <548482CE.5000005@dcrocker.net> <20141207211447.GB21472@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20141207211447.GB21472@mx1.yitter.info> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7rk6eOQpiQo3NWMfNB7RH5mDwIpO0Vd1K" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/Kx9DUrTA5wZQCg0tg8fv8vA5Zw8 Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:28:26 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --7rk6eOQpiQo3NWMfNB7RH5mDwIpO0Vd1K Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andrew, On 12/7/14, 10:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Moreover, "web security people" (i.e. on the web security list) tell > me that the proposals we've discussed so far will never be useful for > the same-origin policy, because to do a same-origin comparison you > need port information too. I find this claim completely mystifying, > because in the PSL you don't have that port information, so I don't > understand where this requirement comes from. That suggests to me > that the details of the same-origin policy are actually murky to the > people who assert what its properties are. If by same origin policy we are talking about whether http://example.com =3D=3D https//example.com, this is known not to be a safe assumption, abs= ent additional information, and is the source of a substantial amount of work in HTTPBIS. But I also don't see how that applies here for the reasons you state, although I could imagine a risk argument being made about this mechanism versus the PSL. Eliot --7rk6eOQpiQo3NWMfNB7RH5mDwIpO0Vd1K Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUhMZ2AAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozSTQIAMYhqpFZFN1Qa80YQmoEaPdb BOK525Snv6OWcVx77IzhZZWZtpGnuUOms7HN7kMp9CaLVaILnrEfAFZK9hGBoUTm G64G0iTi+LP2W/dRBn+GO38P6Z7Yj6URZN3rn281aNN/UFFrtIwApTLgzRYECSP/ uRcvZpKy1EhGkOzUjj18T68glzd5KH65nLQnIK1GcaN/PsTPwBB1OaN6acojs+qo bof8M1/wcizaqQKrQVWwxvGb12Og8JdycSk1dEDyTYaDN8l56CXJKDei+m7D7yR2 9IrNwtmSjhKq1+s91du/9SfLc0MuppD5k5VTsIXfvnZF9aNy4ApGh5B0E1jstPI= =YnBv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7rk6eOQpiQo3NWMfNB7RH5mDwIpO0Vd1K-- From nobody Sun Dec 7 13:52:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81991A0070 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:52:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no 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 dL4a7qDsuhEQ for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A447C1A004C for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [118.143.13.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BAA78A035 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 16:52:03 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dbound@ietf.org Message-ID: <20141207215202.GF21472@mx1.yitter.info> References: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> <35E8861D-8F6B-415A-A8D8-3D3972EDBCD9@anvilwalrusden.com> <548482CE.5000005@dcrocker.net> <20141207211447.GB21472@mx1.yitter.info> <5484C676.2060103@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5484C676.2060103@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/UMd-3sKNALZ4YTqUplllhAgBwE8 Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:52:12 -0000 On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 10:28:22PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > > If by same origin policy we are talking about whether http://example.com > == https//example.com, No. My understanding of what same-origin policy means in this context is that, for the purposes of running (say) javascript, can I use something I got from the [scheme][host][port] source in the context of [scheme2][host2][port2]? AFAICT, the actual way this works in practice is that scheme and scheme2 are always the same and are almost always either http or https, port and port2 are always the same and are usually 80 or 443, and the real question is whether host and host2 are "the same" for these purposes. But I suppose someone who knows the code could correct me. Anyway, one of the various drafts I spit up on this topic had a complicated mechanism for including schemes and ports, which lasted until the very same people told me it was way too complicated and nobody could understand it so useless. Since it also seemed like a hideous wart to me, I ripped it all out again. The usual example is running some javascript from http://example.com on http://label.example.com. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Sun Dec 7 15:08:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208341A1AD2 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:08:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 e89mm2wkE6l3 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:08:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BFCA1A1A88 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:08:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB7N7vmr017955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:08:07 -0800 Message-ID: <5484DDBC.2000208@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:07:40 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine , dbound@ietf.org References: <20141207203512.5780.qmail@ary.lan> In-Reply-To: <20141207203512.5780.qmail@ary.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:08:07 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/n64FjO1w8R6UCXJLwJ74RE_irMM Subject: Re: [Dbound] usage cases, was Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 23:08:09 -0000 On 12/7/2014 12:35 PM, John Levine wrote: > It appears to be very hard for people to describe use cases without > immediately diving into solutions, or into restatements of the problem > that assume particular approaches to solutions. It's nearly always true for IETF work. Something about being engineers... But absent a shared sense of use cases, debates about solution choices frequently entail differences in each person's (private) selections of use cases. So it's less that my solution choice is better than yours but that mine suits my use cases better, and your preference suits yours. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Tue Dec 9 02:13:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1135F1A0099 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 02:13:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 0XcXsh2BoNt5 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 02:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6D641A0053 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 02:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.147] (93.243.187.81.in-addr.arpa [81.187.243.93]) (Authenticated sender: gerv@mozilla.org) by mx1.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B97C3F2026; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 02:13:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5486CB34.4050609@mozilla.org> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:13:08 +0000 From: Gervase Markham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/34.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Sullivan , dbound@ietf.org References: <5482A558.90009@cisco.com> <35E8861D-8F6B-415A-A8D8-3D3972EDBCD9@anvilwalrusden.com> <548482CE.5000005@dcrocker.net> <20141207211447.GB21472@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20141207211447.GB21472@mx1.yitter.info> OpenPGP: id=9DF43DBB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/XItuAg-ebwvQYbtZc7-rgoZ7Umk Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:13:13 -0000 On 07/12/14 21:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I suspect the reason you don't understand that is because, as near as > I can tell, nobody does. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-principles-of-origin-00 ? Also https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Same-origin_policy http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Same_Origin_Policy > Moreover, "web security people" (i.e. on the web security list) tell > me that the proposals we've discussed so far will never be useful for > the same-origin policy, because to do a same-origin comparison you > need port information too. I find this claim completely mystifying, > because in the PSL you don't have that port information, so I don't > understand where this requirement comes from. That suggests to me > that the details of the same-origin policy are actually murky to the > people who assert what its properties are. The port has to be the same. if (port1 == port2) does not require any sort of list lookup :-) Gerv From nobody Tue Dec 9 08:51:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23E71A876B for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:51:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 OJUZFh-DFeUn for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:51:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5DC61A89AF for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:51:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 53327 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2014 16:51:16 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2014 16:51:16 -0000 Date: 9 Dec 2014 16:50:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20141209165057.11566.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dbound@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5486CB34.4050609@mozilla.org> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/1-hN8ZiKk5cKsQAUgCDWCv6C_yQ Cc: gerv@mozilla.org Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:51:29 -0000 >The port has to be the same. > >if (port1 == port2) > >does not require any sort of list lookup :-) I believe the concern that Andrew was passing along is that the boundaries for port 80 traffic might be different than the boundaries for port 443 or port 25. To me, this is deep into "don't do that" territory, but they said what they said. R's, John From nobody Wed Dec 10 02:36:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2718C1A19F8 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:36:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Tmpmm8pt6bu8 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329361A064C for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:36:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1476; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418207781; x=1419417381; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=I+ug5RhDeUFHJ2DGmOWVQlqCR/iNhxMsUdwjBBbA58w=; b=Q3lHx1A3YPWHvxmWHCX5q8DOvcVNjTPYlTtexvSa6hossGZsJPEXL6ba trUMbi1GVgpPNzgTuiS2tMLb+gZqwvvoCMHbDm1eSpV7gj+YTkInugyxc z+4sqllC9D6kSw4UZQ8vxRNsTI0btT/on6zra+4QlrIcf5qQHO9Ml/W6U g=; X-Files: signature.asc : 486 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqYEAMshiFStJssW/2dsb2JhbABZhzXIcwKBLAEBAQEBfYQDAQEEI1UBEAsYCRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMAQcBAYg0v3qXMQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReQAweCb4FHAQSPTYEnhX+FeItig289gnMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,551,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="264046919" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2014 10:36:11 +0000 Received: from [10.61.87.74] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5963.cisco.com [10.61.87.74]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBAAa9Lj031603; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:36:10 GMT Message-ID: <54882219.6050001@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:36:09 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine , dbound@ietf.org References: <20141209165057.11566.qmail@ary.lan> In-Reply-To: <20141209165057.11566.qmail@ary.lan> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qpeceGcQ7NILIpHmHMPgfNtpLtswRWiUw" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/cNdBhHESmBdTc-4UJQP7GzYevp0 Cc: gerv@mozilla.org Subject: Re: [Dbound] Charter feedback X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:36:25 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --qpeceGcQ7NILIpHmHMPgfNtpLtswRWiUw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi John, On 12/9/14, 5:50 PM, John Levine wrote: >> The port has to be the same. >> >> if (port1 =3D=3D port2) >> >> does not require any sort of list lookup :-) > I believe the concern that Andrew was passing along is that the > boundaries for port 80 traffic might be different than the boundaries > for port 443 or port 25. > > To me, this is deep into "don't do that" territory, but they said what > they said. > I'm sorry to belabor this, but does anyone have a real example of that?=20 A reference will do. Eliot --qpeceGcQ7NILIpHmHMPgfNtpLtswRWiUw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUiCIaAAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozmJYIAKo8nrsg9lpH34RPbTmdOPKz QjPB6Pfx4X6DMIPENsnWAmrltiwRGydx1Y8E8k2GWm9OzGGc1As147TM2fmrJxmh dwVGbhwSQnVBi6MiqIQ5VXWj7BD7pg9TFEcygjqdFz+ez9b7RJ8ZCpVAOhHSu6cr pMEWecng/xmc7vos0Kv3D/U3S0PcZWZDAKpb5W1/irOtBNtSgPHFQoAxKKQZafpE 45Fp8FYPNc9u5AYN8q9kiI4AhQszSr5Ch3reoDr4WxHhkvK/PrDmVa/jXzIKAHmc WuL7ggKbdOWLukv2+cCxWJufyFKTQXR6IgDXoW2JBOxDU0QUB4hb77CRMQO3OsU= =0fdO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qpeceGcQ7NILIpHmHMPgfNtpLtswRWiUw--