Putting the focus on this part of Steve¹s original email for now: On 7/5/15, 7:26 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of st...@shinkuro.com> wrote:
> >o ICANN speaks indistinctly about subset 5. > >o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to subset >4? Ideally, I would argue we may not need such a process. Beside experimentation with strings like xx-, subset 2 should be empty or, at least, not ground for consideration to move to subset 4. So, beside grand-fathering a few strings, what is needed is a process that is less ambiguous and simpler to evaluate than RFC6761 to reserve strings in subset 4. Maybe something along the lines of IETF validates the technical merits of the proposal and ICANN validates the suggested name That leads us to the next point: >o A process for coordination between the IETF and ICANN regarding subsets >2, 4 and 5 would be helpful. RFC6761 does not say anything about such a coordination process. We have now learned a lot going through this round of 6761 candidates, so it is time to work on 6761bis, with, among other things, this coordination between ICANN and IETF on the agenda. Alain.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
