I think updating alt-tld draft to point to the specific problems in sutld-ps to be useful.
I am holding out hope that alt-tld will be unstuck and kicked down the road. I also am holding out for a pony. tim On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
