SM: > 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. >
In terms of informational RFCs, I think it is clearly a good idea to document what is realistically in use. >> 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". > I assume that .local did not always have history? However, I think that there are clearly many p2p systems with a history as well - .onion is nearly ten years old now. >> 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. > What would make it 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. > What is a better alternatively? Shall we ignore the IETF and ICANN entirely? Shall we give up on IETF and shell out the cash to ICANN? The P2P systems push the boundary - the informational RFC merely documents it and ensures that the IETF is the best place to find that information. All the best, Jacob _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
