On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
> > I seem to remember that the working group already put all 6761 related > requests for TLDs on hold. So new TLDs cannot be requested to be reserved > via 6761 anyway. I don't think a further RFC is needed to formalise > this. Although that can be discussed on the dnsop list of course. Respectfully, I don't agree. the current shut-down is an ad-hoc decision. It needs the formalism to close it permanently, if we expect to stop people coming to the door. If we have a sense at some stage the door is re-opening, we can expect the queue not only to be maintained, but to grow. I think the proper place for the queue is in another venue (ICANN) and their lack of a proper technical justification channel independently of our process is a problem, but its a problem in their space, not in our space. Equally, if a proposal like the ALT namespace was secured, the special-names registry would be superceded by the ALT registry, which operated on a completely different basis with different consequences and costs. I don't think the special-use names registry should remain open on-hold, if we secure ALT. So I think a distinct formalism which says "we made a mistake: we don't do this" has merit. This is basically what I'd expect to say on slideware in the meeting. But we can do it here too. -george > > > Paul >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
