> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is > documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed. One of the > reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the > original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions, without > there being a clear agreement on what problems exist, and what problems we as > a working group can get consensus to try to address. > > This discussion is again going down the solution space path. I understand > the motivation, and I don't disagree with it, but I really would like to get > a problem statement before we start talking about solutions.
Emphatically +1. - Ralph > >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Alain Durand <alain.dur...@icann.org> >> wrote: >> What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure toxicity. >> We could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and maybe then >> define a threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that particular >> string. >> >> I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this list in >> 6761 is problematic, for the reason mentioned in section 3.f of darft-adpkja: >> >> "f. [RFC6761] does not have provision for subsequent management of >> the registry, such as updates, deletions of entries, etc…” >> >> >> Alain. >> >> >>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:10 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >>> >>> This is the toxic waste bit. The names don't make sense in the 6761 >>> special use registry, since they're not being used in any way that is >>> or can be standardized, but they also aren't suitable for delegation >>> due to widespread de facto use. I also expect that if we redid last >>> year's debate in anything like the same way, we'd have the same >>> result, one or two highly motivated people who work for TLD applicants >>> would sabotage it. >>> >>> As I hardly need tell you, it is utterly unclear whether it makes more >>> sense to have the IETF reserve them or, to switch hats and encourage >>> ICANN to put them on a list of names that aren't in use but can't be >>> delegated as SAC045 suggests. >>> >>> One reason that the latter makes slightly more sense is that it's >>> likely that some of those names will eventually become less polluted, >>> so the list needs to be reconsidered every once in a while (years.) >>> For example, I gather that it's been a decade since Belkin stopped >>> making routers that leak .belkin traffic, and at some point most of >>> them will be gone. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
