I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed. One of the reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions, without there being a clear agreement on what problems exist, and what problems we as a working group can get consensus to try to address.
This discussion is again going down the solution space path. I understand the motivation, and I don't disagree with it, but I really would like to get a problem statement before we start talking about solutions. On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Alain Durand <alain.dur...@icann.org> wrote: > What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure > toxicity. We could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and > maybe then define a threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that > particular string. > > I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this list > in 6761 is problematic, for the reason mentioned in section 3.f of > darft-adpkja: > > "f. [RFC6761] does not have provision for subsequent management of > the registry, such as updates, deletions of entries, etc…” > > > Alain. > > > On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:10 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > This is the toxic waste bit. The names don't make sense in the 6761 > special use registry, since they're not being used in any way that is > or can be standardized, but they also aren't suitable for delegation > due to widespread de facto use. I also expect that if we redid last > year's debate in anything like the same way, we'd have the same > result, one or two highly motivated people who work for TLD applicants > would sabotage it. > > As I hardly need tell you, it is utterly unclear whether it makes more > sense to have the IETF reserve them or, to switch hats and encourage > ICANN to put them on a list of names that aren't in use but can't be > delegated as SAC045 suggests. > > One reason that the latter makes slightly more sense is that it's > likely that some of those names will eventually become less polluted, > so the list needs to be reconsidered every once in a while (years.) > For example, I gather that it's been a decade since Belkin stopped > making routers that leak .belkin traffic, and at some point most of > them will be gone. > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
