>If not, can you suggest changes that would get your support for advancing it? >(“Send text” if possible!)
It's closer than I had remembered. In the problem paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 6, on domain names that have been commandeered, I'd like it to say that there is no agreement on how to decide that a name has been comandeered, nor if or how to revisit a name to decide that it's been uncomandeered. (For that last, I'm thinking about .BELKIN, where the routers that leak the name will eventually all fail, or .CORP where people may use it less now that CAs don't sign certs any more.) I'd also like a mention of DNSSEC. DNSSEC is intended to provide a signature chain from the root to any leaf, but there is no way to chain to a SUTLD. There's also no agreement what to do with DNSSEC and existing SUTLDs, whether to have DNSSEC say they don't exist, or to create some sort of unsigned pseudo-delegation, or something else. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
