> On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:37 PM 3/25/16, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> > wrote: > > 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.
You are right. I wrote imprecisely and reviewed what I wrote hastily. I would have been more correct to simply quote that text from RFC 6761, and point out that RFC 6761 leaves the process for determining that a name is to be designated as a special-use name as implicitly out of scope. > Both an IETF "Standards Action" and an "IESG Approval" require IETF > consensus; RFC publication does not. I agree and it's an important point that the process of designating a name for special use requires IETF consensus, which implies IETF review and discussion of any potential designation. It was a point I was trying to make but made badly. Thanks for the clarification. > 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. I'll agree to disagree with you on this point. > > --Paul Hoffman - Ralph
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
