I could take it either way. narrow doc is narrow purpose? don't ref it. doc is highly visible, will be (mis)interpreted as being relevant? disavow it (which implies ref it)
doc is highly visible, problem next door? Seek guidance. -G On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On one specific point: > >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:02 PM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: >> >> Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that >> any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why >> this draft is special, against that letter. You make a compelling and >> simple case: because its specifically NOT-DNS, not public DNS, its not >> relevant. Ok, then say so. 'we didn't say so because it wasn't >> relevant' feels pretty weak to me. > > > I’m fine with “the draft needs to be updated with reference to the relevance > of .arpa” as a WGLC comment, so the below is intended as contributing to the > discussion, not repressing it. > > On the intentions and role of the IAB: > > An IAB statement isn’t an IETF document of any kind, never mind a standards > track document, and can’t tell the IETF what to do— including this WG. So > the IAB certainly can’t say “We don’t do that any more” as a policy statement > about an IETF registry such as the special use names registry. However, RFC > 3172 is an IETF BCP, and provides direction to the IETF and the IAB (as admin > authority for .arpa) on the requirements that should be followed for a > delegation in .arpa. So as a WGLC comment, this suggests the addition of a > reference to RFC 3172 and the applicability of the .arpa policy there to the > justification for alt. > > It’s my view that, as Paul says, the IAB note was written about a different > case than the alt-tld draft was: the IAB was attempting to point out an > alternative to asking for a delegation in the root zone in the case that a > special use name is supposed to be resolvable in the DNS. The alt-tld draft > is about names that aren’t intended to be resolvable in the DNS in the first > place. > > However, since I was a contributor to the IAB document, it puts me in an > awkward position to be interpreting it for DNSOP on behalf of the IAB. If > further clarification on the IAB statement would be useful, we should > explicitly request it. > > best, > Suzanne > >> >> I can do this as a nit in the GIT if you prefer. >> >> -G >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: >>> On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote: >>> >>>> isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? >>> >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed >>>> without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case. >>> >>> >>> Are you saying that because of: >>> >>> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names-in-the-arpa-domain/ >>> If so, I suspect you read it wrong. My reading is that the IAB is only >>> saying that names that are supposed to act like DNS names (that is, to exist >>> in the public DNS) need to be under .arpa. This draft explicitly is about >>> non-DNS contexts. >>> >>> --Paul Hoffman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
