On 07/17/2015 01:35 AM, David Conrad wrote:
To be honest, I doubt this. It assumes folks who are developing these non-DNS
protocols know/care about what the IETF thinks.
I suspect that more do than you think. However, what they think about
the IETF is that we have a very heavyweight process, and it's hard to
get anything done here in a timely fashion.
>If we want to avoid future instances of squatting, it behooves us to avoid
applying too much process friction onto documents of this type. Granted, it's
hard to tell how much is too much, but this particular discussion was kicked off
in November of 2013, and here it is July of 2015, and we are still talking about
it. That's a pretty heavy process.
I agree on the need for less friction, hence my interest in trying to find
objective criteria. Lack of objective criteria pretty much guarantees the same
sort of discussion and 'heavy process' you're complaining about.
With all due respect, this is a classic mistake that geeks make:
thinking that there can be some objective criterion or set of criteria
that would make decisions simple. The reality is that to make criteria
of this sort objective would require a solution to the halting
problem. At which point the cold minds that sleep in the space between
the stars would awaken. So really, for the sake of humanity, I think
it would be best to avoid going down this path. Er, that is, if
resolving this discussion depends on finding some such objective
criteria, we are never going to resolve it.
It's pretty clear that .onion in particular does satisfy the
non-objective criteria we currently have.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
