On 7/7/15, 8:28 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of hellekin" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of helle...@gnu.org> wrote:
>In my opinion, what we need is already there, and is called RFC6761. >Now I'm all ears for what needs to be done to enhance RFC6761 process. Here is a short list: - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and ICANN on this topic. - RFC6761 talks about names, not TLDs. i.e. It could be use to reserve a name under any existing TLD. - RFC6761 does not say much about how to evaluate the merits of proposals. That made the discussion on the current crop of candidates difficult. I¹m sure there are more issues. It would be great to discuss this in Prague. Alain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
