Hi Paul!Good conversation! I hope we can discuss some of this "in person" (whatever that means these days) at IETF 115.
On 17.10.22 04:20, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote:1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761. This is a problem for two reasons.One could advance the 6761bis proposal document first, which would remove these non-compliance items as those would be no longer needed (as the bis document proposal removes it as these were not consistently required in the past). Alternatively, ignoring it wouldn't be the first time these are ignored, so I guess there is a precedence of ignoring it.
If what you are saying is that we shouldn't get hung up on 6761, then I agree. There are, I think, many ways to deal with the issue that Suzanne raised. One possibility not mentioned was to simply slap an "Updates" header on this draft if we think it's necessary, but that wouldn't be my first choice. The bigger issue is below. IMHO if we can kink that out, we have ourselves a ballgame.
2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo-SLDs concerns meMe too, I really do believe that the IETF should not do this. It is an anchor for non-IETF hooks. There is no guarantee of uniqueness in names. Some alternative sysytems might even use .alt without SLD. [...] But also, IETF maintaining a list might open it up for legal liabilities with alternative naming systems.
Let's please leave Internet lawyering to lawyers. If people want a legal opinion on this draft, the IETF does have resources for that.
So I disagree with Eliot who prefered some kind of FCFS registry that requires RFCs to get an entry. We do not want alternative naming systems to require (and burden) the IETF with RFCs.
I am struggling to parse that sentence, but taken together with this...
Basically, .alt is what IETF recommends you should not do, and we should not keep a registry of entries within it.
We cannot assume that DNS will forever be the only Good approach and that all others will forever be Bad. Given that, we as a community are obligated to search for better, and to try new things. As I wrote earlier, I do not know that GNS will succeed. I do hope and expect that the community will learn something from some deployment experience of that protocol so that the next one can be better.
There exist many registries for things the IETF doesn't recommend. One need look no further than TLS 1.3 crypto-suites as an example.
No matter what we say in the ALT draft, someone could burden the IETF with a new draft. People do so every day. If it gains sufficient support, it would have to be at least considered, no matter the topic. And again, I suspect most of these sorts of documents are more likely to flow to the ISE or perhaps a future IRTF RG. As the current ISE, that is a burden I would gladly bear, because there is the opportunity to help the Internet community, including the IETF and ICANN.
I also have no problem rejecting trivial or bad proposals. Eliot
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
