Hi, Keeping in mind the exchange Ted and I had the other day, I want to note first that I'm speaking for myself and that I'm really actually in principle entirely in favour of people doing whatever they want on their networks. Again, my concern here is at least partly to do with the IETF's interface to the rest of the world.
With that in hand, On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Christian Grothoff wrote: > Given that Tor, GNUnet, I2P and NameCoin have all been developed outside > of the IETF, I find the idea that IETF is *creating* the competition > odd. The competition *exists*, and has in many cases existed for more > than a decade. it may be that I should use a word other than "creating". Perhaps "sanctioning" or something like that. Anyway, there's an important difference: Suppose the IETF does nothing. In that case, there really is a straight competition, and a serious problem for ICANN, the protocol community around the alternative resolution scheme, and potentially the Internet in the event that ICANN delegates these names. If the IETF makes a registration, however, then one of two things happens. On the one hand, ICANN might just accept the registration and take these names out of contention in any future root expansion. (Registrations in the special-use registry were off limits under the existing Applicant Guide Book, IIRC.) In that case, in these cases of alternative globally-scoped resolution systems, the IETF is effectively privileging the request of one such system (the special-names ones) over those that ICANN might pick (that would go through the ICANN process). On the other hand, ICANN might decide that the IETF's registration was illegitimate, and permit such a name to be registered. (I think this is unlikely, but if my crystal ball were better I'm sure I'd be part of the idle rich by now; it's certainly logically possible.) Were this path to happen, there'd be a real crisis about the management of the global domain name space. So that to me is the difference between documenting the practices and actually putting a registration in the special use registry. I hope this makes plainer what is animating my concern. > What I keep suggesting is that at this time, the IETF should *document* > the existence of said competition. Nobody proposed obsoleting DNS and > standardizing GNS at this point ;-). We wrote them in support of RFC > 2826, reading it as applicable to the domain name space and not just the > DNS name space --- which is in my mind the only technically desirable > interpretation). I do think this has all been useful, and I also appreciate your patience and willingness to thrash this out in public in this rather slow and painful process. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
