On 07/15/2015 01:11 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
Well do they want a TLD but they don’t have the money? or don’t want a
TLD? perhaps the problem is in how the TLD program treats them, in
which case the answer should be on the ICANN side.
As I said in the previous message, they do not want a TLD allocated by
ICANN. They want a special use name in the IETF RFC 6761 special-use
name registry.
I don’t like setting things in stone forever, I agree with the
assessment on “what happens if TOR ceases to exist”, but the answer
can’t be, lets put it in an RFC where we run the risk of being black
listed in code potentially forever. Quoting Paul Vixie on the 100-year
cycle, in 100 years, we’ll have to wait 100 more years for it to be
released, that will certainly create more potential problems.
Would you make the same point about .local?
Having this mechanism for reserving special use names, creates two
different authorities managing the same namespace, this will require
tight coordination as well as clear and transparent guidelines to make
it work.
RFC 6761 already specified this. The tight coordination of which you
speak has occurred in this case, and will continue: the IESG is keenly
aware of the situation, based on discussions that I was privy to and
comments I've witnessed since I stopped being privy to such discussions.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
