On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > When I wrote the problem statement I tried to do my best to document the > implications of various actions that might be taken, including the 6761 > registry. I think I did that in the "Domain Name Purity" section. > Closing that registry is certainly something the IETF could do.
Good to understand we think we can do this, as in process permits us to do it. > However, there are significant implications if we do so, and we should > understand > those implications and either be prepared to do something to address them, > or else accept that there will be consequences for not addressing them. We > should not simply blithely close the registry thinking that that will be the > end of the matter. No, indeed. It would be naive to think that actions have no consequences. I mean, we have a queue already. Its one thing to be queuing outside a door which is shut but you think will re-open, and its another to have the security guard post "permanently closed" on the door. Uproar aside, I'd expect a pretty direct focus on the problem statement. From a lot more people. And that for me, is part of the problem. I've said elsewhere that I think the absence of architecture is one of the most disappointing aspects of what 6761 does. The conversation in arcing was a good sign that some people have a sense of architecture, and are seeking a cohesive position based on architecture. -George _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
