-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 07/07/2015 08:00 PM, Alain Durand wrote: >> >> o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to >> subset 4? > > what is needed is a process that is less ambiguous and simpler to > evaluate than RFC6761 to reserve strings in subset 4.
Can you please elaborate on "ambiguous and simpler"? In my opinion, what we need is already there, and is called RFC6761. Now I'm all ears for what needs to be done to enhance RFC6761 process. But I don't think taking back technical control over a tiny subset of global names from IETF can do any good. I think RFC6761 section 5 is not ambiguous, but I've seen ambiguity in how candidates answer the questions. Maybe clarifying the scope of each point is in order. == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVnG6nXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9OUoQAKVY8GsLVrniE8hR8g2UOb6a C5mkvrMdvfI+XeeSbFfXTgBtPTYZk+XZZKHmlgJg0JXVXsmZ+UJSHjWQ1M0seca4 0hRjnG+HGNK5ok3VttH7dbI/xCDtIrfZeYJElRz4MKXNCb5lbh9F9CqdZvtbT3qO Sz0U4Jj1pqxkkAnlXyNogoNC0DvoqKZz8j8CjEcom/ysfWYJyWLIz2MRsHVP26MX 7QG55fK+I786c6eAI8bbOGK4T35r8eikFny0K0iZvztaRNINML2EQmIveUl7GDHs u131HwnOsJPHOS7oIGAd1DRV7BxbLkXsNgafJU/jNTXeAJWJJY4B7/ID0kD+K1gf D497VZ4TzzXsfI20tfd+b5DSuL1tgeMOViUWh3UqcnK0V3dcBsUdagBvbuXq2TOZ jUZ5TaqCMz87L0uExKRtHwK5e+dqEM5Lo8lVI62+0EzzzzHLPCE8dm+4GuVHzy4O vwfufbU0eFfkzTNDK8PzSH8emHIExh7ztpYATiBN+W43Mkq267/SzdiKz3G0o2Bc UVBXjU06/h4xv67nMXoCVHw2QhzXnkGMHus0Cw71yF2kxUEV2BOz78I+2kCxXgJC jwHTgmdtIjZ6+X1p9KNtuBgfDOXKnn1l0pYNZaOZ/r2Sa+J71EN9t8GsrVG7YCEJ zTMQ84+4/tMUeGRkrJiK =4Ltp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
