Ralph, On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > First, I'll emphasize that the process of designating a name as "special use" > is separate from the mechanical process of actually adding a new name to the > Special-Use Names registry.
Agreed. > RFC 6761 explicitly defines the latter process, and implicitly requires open > IETF review for the former process. In my opinion, we can focus on the > former process, of deciding whether a name should be designated as having a > special use. This process may have, as you point out, issues regarding > trademarks, association of names with organizations, and many others. > > I'm not trying to wish those issues away, and I don't think Andrew is either. > Rather, speaking only for myself, I believe that our open process of > community review and consensus is an appropriate starting point for > discussion. In my limited experience, the IETF process is great for (a subset of) technical matters. It has perhaps been less than great in social/political/economic matters and I thought there was a general reluctance for the IETF to go that direction. I am a bit surprised there appears to be a desire, implicit or not, to apply the IETF process in these non-technical areas, particularly as many assume that part of the reason for 2860 was specifically because the IETF wasn't, at least historically, particularly well suited to or interested in dealing with these kinds of non-technical issues. I am a bit curious as to the rationale behind the change of heart. Regards, -drc (Speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
