On 25 Mar 2016, at 8:33, Ralph Droms wrote:
I'm responding here with none of my various hats on...
As are we all. (Or, in some of our cases, wearing none of our
organization's jaunty logos...)
Here's the tl;dr version. This document has some useful information
and raises, directly and indirectly, some important questions that the
IETF should consider. Unfortunately, those useful bits are buried in
a polemic that is directed toward a specific outcome. If this
document is accepted as a WG document, I strongly suggest that it be
heavily edited to extract and emphasize the useful text and discard
the rest.
Understood. However, you said one very significant thing to support that
view that is factually incorrect, and goes to the heart of what I read
as a motivator for the longer list of problems in
draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem. You say:
RD>> I disagree with this characterization of RFC 6761, which provides
an explicit registry for behaviors that are specified in other
documents for special handling. My view of the process defined in RFC
6761 is that an RFC is published that describes the special use for
part of the domain namespace. The decision about whether to
standardize that use is implicitly part of the RFC publication
process. Once the decision is made to publish the RFC, the effects of
the standardized use of the subset of the namespace is recorded in the
RFC 6761 registry.
But that's *not* what RFC 6761 says. Instead, it says:
If it is determined that special handling of a name is required in
order to implement some desired new functionality, then an IETF
"Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" specification [RFC5226] MUST
be
published describing the new functionality.
Both an IETF "Standards Action" and an "IESG Approval" require IETF
consensus; RFC publication does not. My reading of the extensive list of
problems in draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem is that most of
them stem from lack of IETF consensus. Both the WG Last Call and IETF
Last Call on .onion were contentious and were possibly moved forward
more due to exhaustion than actual consensus (see RFC 7282).
Personally, I don't find listing the problems that came out during those
consensus calls a "polemic", but you might.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
