Hiya, I'm pretty sure I'll be a yes ballot on this (after I re-read the draft which I've not read for quite a while). And I don't expect either of us to change our ballot, but that said, I hope you don't mind explaining your ballot a little more since I'm not getting part of your argument and that part could be relevant if/when other special use name drafts are processed. (Or if/when someone tries to win the race and first improve IETF handling of special-use names.)
On 21/08/15 19:37, Barry Leiba wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I believe the IETF shouldn't be involved with registering special-use > TLDs for things that have been squatted on, and thus helping to > circumvent ICANN's normal process. The above confuses me. Do ICANN have any process for allocating special-use names that will not be used in the DNS? I am not aware of such but it may exist. I am also not at all clear that I'd accept that ICANN ought be in that particular business. Note: I am not saying what I think of, not asking what you think of, ICANNs new gTLD programme, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that programme is "normal";-) But that process is surely not one that could be used for special-use names that are required by protocols that require not using those names in DNS queries. Secondly, I don't get what you are saying you think about current IETF consensus (i.e. RFC 6761). Are you saying that: a) you don't agree with 6761? or b) that 6761 is fine but only for not-yet-deployed special-use names? If (a) I'm not sure that's our (IESG) role, and (b) seems highly unlikely to be workable (if one assumes an I-D has to wend its way through the process the special-use name will be deployed before IESG evaluation). So maybe you mean something else? > I know there are a bunch of other > such TLDs that people/organizations would have us snag for them, and I > very much want to avoid that nasty iceberg, of which this is the tip. That's why I'm asking my questions above - I do think there's more work to be done here amounting to some combination of improving 6761 and figuring out how to properly handle the other queued-up strings. In passing I have to say that I don't agree there's been nasty snaggy squatting on the tip of any iceberg, (sounds painful that:-) And in a pot-calls-kettle-black moment, I'm not sure that kind of language is guaranteed to help us resolve what is a tricky issue in a very tricky environment. But I guess crossing the streams of an anonymity overlay and DN$ was never going to end up very pretty;-) > That said, I well understand the deployed code involved and the > importance of keeping things working in this case, and I don't want to > stand in the way. So I'm standing aside with an "Abstain" ballot. Given what I think is your position, abstaining seems like the right action to take. I think you are quite correct that standing in the way here would have bad consequences. S. > > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
