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

Reply via email to