On 10/7/16 1:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Special Use Names Summary > > > First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion. There were a few > things uncovered which are not in either draft. It does appear that the > draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting > point. Both drafts say useful things, and the chairs would very much > like to see people keep working to get all relevant points into one. The > scoping question of choosing between “What do we think of RFC 6761” and > “What underlying problem do we actually have” came up quite clearly, and > seemed like a key factor to us.
Thank you for doing this, sieving the discussion on the adoption was no small effort. > The chairs felt that a limited scope draft was possible, and what we > were looking for. Even with a limited scope draft, we've found we can't > ignore questions about the underlying assumptions behind 6761, both > because they're not fully articulated and because they may not include > several cases we care about. For example: > - what problem do we have because we value uniqueness in domain > names as an architectural principle, regardless of specific strings chosen? > - what problem exists for the IETF even if we say we don’t care what > other groups (ICANN, the Tor Project, open source creators) do? > - what happens if we abandon this work, or deprecate RFC 6761? > > There are also several items which need clarifying, which the WG > discussion may also include and the chairs will work on with the IESG > and the IAB as appropriate. > > - Describing, as much as possible, how this work interlocks with > ICANN’s policy authority over the DNS root zone > - Providing guidelines for IETF WGs > - Providing guidelines for domain name use outside of the IETF > disposing of some distractions that keep coming up > - Clarifying, to the degree possible, who has process authority over > what (IESG, IAB, this WG, other IETF WGS) We have previously sent liason statements to ICANN to make them aware of this work. Personally I would expect that a future liaison statement on outcomes would need to be supported by an ietf consensus call so I look to us being able to offer guidance for such a statement. > Thanks > > Tim/Suzanne > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
