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?
I added some text which pointed at the general areas of draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps which this 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> In a move sure to trigger the OCD jean[0] in all the pedants, I've replaced a *random subset* of the "alternate" with "alternative".... (actually I did it where I thought it flowed / read better) W [0]: See what I did there? > > - 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 > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
