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.
They want an entry in a reserved-list in this, case. This is similar to
when a registry adds ‘ICANN’ or ‘WPAD’ in the reserved list so
that no-one can register it.
Perhaps we need a registry to manage this list… IANA perhaps? with a
process on how to manage it that runs in coordination between IETF and
ICANN.
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?
Well, even worse, what happens if <name-your-next-OS-vendor> decides to
create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean that we
should automatically block it?
What if they decide to use .local, and then there isn’t
interoperability with mDNS. These issues are solved by namespaces, but
in order to make them work we need to have a registry for them, where
corporations or individuals meet a certain criteria, they apply, and if
granted, they get an entry that gives them right of use of a name.
IETF as far as I know is not a registry.
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.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
—
Francisco Obispo
Uniregistry Inc.
On 15 Jul 2015, at 13:59, Ted Lemon wrote:
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
