There is no downside to being a Jeremiah, because being proved wrong makes the world a better place than I fear.
If you can give some positive indications that a well formed IAB request for delegation gets a smooth path, then I'm all in favour. Equally, if that can be done, then .LOCAL can be done. And in principle .ONION but I guess .ALT is about avoiding the land-grab of me-too. The downside of ALT is that it won't fix the actual concrete problem of .local or .onion because neither is going to change codebase. I fear. Equally, welcome to be proved wrong in practice. Delighted even! -G On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > George, > > > The politics response is really simple: "this idea is doomed." -I wish I > felt otherwise, but I think given the context of the debate over ICANN, who > 'owns' names, $180,000 application fees, IAB directions to IANA, NTIA role, > this is mired. I don't want to be a prophet of doom, but this is my honest > perspecive. > > As with most "really simple" answers, the reality is a bit more > complicated. My impression of this draft is that it creates a space that > would avoid some of the risks associated with RFC 6761. Politically, I > suspect this is desirable, even to all the parties you mention. As for the > fee, ICANN already defers to the IETF in protocol-related matters, so I > don't see why a new gTLD fee would be applicable. With my ICANN hat on, > I'll look into this and report what I hear back. > > > Would it be DNSSEC signed with a well known key? > > Sure, why not? > > Regards, > -drc > (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself) > > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
