Indeed….Please keep in mind we’re not talking about a final document here. While it would be nice to have a document that was almost ready for WG consensus, there’s room to discuss the final scope in the WG.
The “toxic waste” names are a “use case” in the sense that people keep asking about. The identified need for a default namespace in the homenet protocols represents another use case. Suzanne > On Sep 20, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > What is out of scope of the problem statement is saying what to do about > them. :) > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:32 AM, David Cake <d...@davecake.net > <mailto:d...@davecake.net>> wrote: > I tend to think that they may be within scope for the problem statement, but > it is likely that existing solutions (e.g. ICANN refusing to delegate them > while they remain toxic) are adequate to deal with the problem. > > David > > > On 19 Sep 2016, at 8:47 AM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com > > <mailto:jo...@taugh.com>> wrote: > > > >> Dealing with toxic waste names is out of scope for the problem statement. > > > > Well, that's one theory. Let's see of other people agree. > > > > R's, > > John > > > > Regards, > > John Levine, jo...@taugh.com <mailto:jo...@taugh.com>, Taughannock > > Networks, Trumansburg NY > > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > <https://jl.ly/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > DNSOP@ietf.org <mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
