Hi Stephane,
At 09:53 01-12-2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
RFC 6761 does not say anything about that. Do note a TLD has already
been registered under RFC 6761, .local. Some people may say that, when
you are a big US company, just hijack the TLD, deploy the software,
and the IETF will ruberstamp you. But if you are just ordinary people
working to improve the Internet, you have no chance of even being
seriously considered.
Rubberstamping is only possible when people remain quiet. The easier
path is to fix the proposal so that it looks like a technical specification.
Precedent? And .local, what was it?
I asked about .local (see
http://www6.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65346.html
). I did not receive any reponse.
Please note that .local has some history. I would look at it as "do
not use that string as it is unlikely that uniqueness can be ensured".
RFC 6761 "Hence, the act of defining such a special name creates a
higher-level protocol rule, above ICANN's management of allocable
names on the public Internet." So basically, RFC 6761 says that IETF
has the right to create TLD at will.
The IETF should have a good explanation for doing that. In my
opinion the draft under discussion does not provide a good explanation.
At 07:40 02-12-2013, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
TLD live on the boundary of IETF and ICANN, we do not want to push
that boundary but allowing RFC to allocate what ICANN charges big bucks for.
I agree with Olafur that it is not a good idea to push the boundary.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
