This is really well put, Ed. Thanks. I'm a little tempted to plagiarize you.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: > I have gotten the sense of a belief that IANA (the IANA functions office) > runs many registries for the IETF and they are not controversial and > because of this, the issues surrounding the Special Use Domain Name > registry are all fluff and no substance. But the Special Use Domain Name > registry is a special case, it is not a run-of-the-mill IANA registry. > > The registry is special because the items registered are not bound in a > narrow scope. The registered items (names) are used in many different > contexts. This is opposed to protocol parameter registries, where the > registered item has a very narrow meaning. E.g., "MX" as a mnemonic for > the numeric value of 15 in the registry for resource records is not treated > as a conflict with "MX" as the two-letter code for Mexico (not an IANA > registry). (Ignoring well known use problems with dig.) > > There are registries run by IANA like the Special Use Domain Name registry > when it comes to scope. To name two the IPv4 and IPv6 address registries. > Addresses and other number parameters (AS numbers) are used in narrow > contexts but are also seen in other places. The point is that these > registries are supported by well-developed policies for entering items into > registries, the Regional Internet Registries have agreed to pan-RIR, global > policies on these registries. > > This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the > discussions on the topic. Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a > reflection that the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic. > That is not an insult because there's a significant difference between the > function of registration (of anything) and the function of the DNS system. > Those two topics are often confused and I think that is happening again. > > If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period > and the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it > is understandable. Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the > roster of other work represents "time better spent" means that this work > could be pushed off the table. However, the discussion ought to be resumed > somewhere else. I think that the Special Use Domain Name registry is > needed but as it is currently defined, inadequate. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
