> On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:47 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs see it, > here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March). We'll be > having a DNSOP WG interim meeting shortly, see below. > > 1. We need to advance the problem statement document, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/. Please review > and comment on the list. We'd like to have a WGLC on it before IETF 98. > > > Some additional background. > The ICANN SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee) recently (Dec > 22nd) published SAC090 - > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full disclosure: > I'm an author). > > It is short, and easily readable -- I'd strongly encourage you to read it > (but I'll provide some teasers to tempt you!). > It notes that "a central authority to control the way in which domain names > are used in all contexts-is both infeasible and undesirable given the > robustly non-centralized way in which the Internet ecosystem evolves", and > that a coordinated management of the namespace might be best. > It also finds that uncoordinated use leads to ambiguity (and instability), > and that currently ICANN and the IETF (and others) all allocate from a single > namespace. > It recommends that ICANN > 1: create criteria for determining what labels can be TLDs. > 2: figure out how to coordinate with a: the IETF declaring names as "special" > (6761) and b: other "private use" names.
I read SAC090 and also recommend that others read it. The second recommendation affects the IETF and, specifically, would address some of the problems listed in draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps. I've reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and added some text citing SAC090; we'll publish that new revision soon. > > This is a very quick summary, please go actually read it - there are only ~6 > pages of actual content, but it recommends coordination with the IETF. So, > please, let's try and get this moving -- I'd hate it if the IETF ends up > looking more dysfunctional than ICANN :-P > > > Also, ~3 days ago someone posted about .onion (and Special Use Names) on > hackernews -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370488 . This topic is > still of interest to a bunch of people... > > > 2. Now that we have a working problem statement, we'd like to see proposals > on possible changes to IETF procedures to resolve the issues we've raised. > We're looking for on-list discussion, preferably with posted I-Ds. > > These proposals do not have to be limited to work for the DNSOP WG; they may > also include work we think belongs in other WGs, or requests to the IESG or > the IAB (such as liaison statements to groups outside of the IETF). > > We have had a proposal, for the ALT TLD, before us for some time now, which > we put aside while we worked on the problem statement. As part of assessing > solutions, we need to review > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ and determine what > the WG wants to do with it. Comments to the list, please. > > Yes please. The document is still parked, but please send me comments *on the > draft* and I'll try keep track of them to incorporate. I know that there is > much background which can be culled, I'll post a new version to GitHub with > that done soon. Now that we have draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, would there be any benefit to revising draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld to point to the specific problems .alt would address? <pedantic>I was going to suggest 1,$g/alternate/alternative/, but consulting Merriam-Webster informs me that "For all intents and purposes, alternate and alternative are synonymous. Oh, well.</pedantic> - Ralph > > W > > > 3. We're scheduling an interim WG meeting during the week of January 30 for > further work on this topic. We'll provide some possible days/times to the > list for feedback shortly, and we can't promise to accomodate everyone's > schedule constraints but will do our best. > > > best, > Suzanne & Tim > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
