On 05/12/2015 02:49 PM, Dan York wrote: > I’ve been reading this whole discussion with great interest over the past > while and do intend on joining today’s call. In the midst of all of this I > think two points from Andrew and Ed have been helpful to my thinking: > >> On May 11, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >> >> It seems to me that making new reservations solely on _policy_ grounds >> is overstepping our role, because we actually gave that management >> function away to someone else many years ago. But if there are >> additional protocol-shift registrations, it would be appropriate to do >> that. > I’m not sure I’m 100% on board with Andrew’s use of the term “protocol-shift” > to explain the difference, but I do agree with his statement that > reservations should not be made based *solely* on policy grounds and that > there needs to be some true protocol-based reason for the reservation. > > Even better, I like Ed’s distinction: > >> On May 9, 2015, at 7:29 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: >> >> The problem (the topic of discussion here) I see is that there are class >> of strings that are intended to not be active in the DNS and further more, >> the DNS isn't even meant to be consulted. > > This to me is the key point. Reserving names like .ONION makes sense to me > because there is existing Internet infrastructure that is widely deployed and > uses that TLD-like-name in its operation…. but has no expectation that the > name would be active in DNS. Were such a TLD ever to be delegated in DNS, > it could conceivably *break* these existing services and applications. > Those are the kind of names that make sense to be reserved. > +1
[snip]. /Hugo Connery _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
