+1 This feels like a process run-around. The conversation has been held in DNSOP and didn't reach consensus. It is not like the WG said "we don't care" -the WG cared immensely. It just couldn't come to a single point of view.
A lot of the issues are layer-8/9 and I think it's most likely this is a sign of a problem which demands a different kind of document, not an ISE document. Possibly its an IAB document about the view of the integral namespace and process boundaries around delegation, non-delegation and reservation as they intersect with protocol and operations. Also no-hats. I'm partisan in this, but I think the process question is distinct from the actual topic On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 11:30 AM Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2022, at 08:31, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) > <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > I do not think the ISE should ignore or be a workaround for RFC 6761 Special > Use Domains. There any many problems with its application and its lack of > application but adding the ISE as a third party along with the IETF and ICANN > doesn’t make this problem easier. > > Alternate names spaces want a “real name”, so either their name or their > mapping will “squats” on the DNS namespace. They won’t use .alt or ._alt > just like they aren’t using alt.onion or gns.onion. > > Paul (as individual) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
