Jim, I asked you this privately, but your mail server bounced my mail for no obvious reason with:
550 5.7.1 <mail-lf0-f41.google.com[209.85.215.41]>: Client host rejected: No thanks. So, what do you think "the root cause" is? On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > On 27 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > > >> Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless > detail and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement. > > > > .... we have two of them -- > > Indeed Warren. That’s one too many. > > They both come up short as problem statements IMO. I’m struggling to find > words to succinctly describe what problem the WG is expected to solve - > sorry about that -- since it appears to be a layer 9+ matter. Both drafts > seem to be concerned with treating (some of?) the symptoms rather than the > root cause(s). Excuse the pun. > > > ALT doesn't solve any of the major issues, but it *does* create a safe > > place for those people who want to experiment and build alternate > > resolution systems -- and takes some of the pressure off while we > > discuss solutions.... > > True. But that seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Where’s the > demand from experimenters and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their > alterate resolution systems? That’s a rhetorical question BTW. Answering it > may well distract the WG from its quest for that one true problem statement > to rule them all. So please don’t do that. :-) > > FWIW I’m sceptical about creating .alt as a playpen for experiments since > it might undermine efforts to answer the question ICANN asked us, whatever > that question might be, or be the start of a slippery slope. Maybe a TLD is > needed for experiments. Maybe not. However that’s something to discuss once > we’ve figured out what has to be done about special* TLDs in general. *For > some as-yet-unclear definition of special. > > I think the WG should step back from both drafts, take a deep breath and > agree a problem statement. Once that’s done, we’ll be in a better place to > decide what to do with both drafts. > > Easier said than done I know... > _______________________________________________ > 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
