I would absolutely agree that DNSOP is the wrong place to try and settle this problem because the problem is inherently about policy decisions taken in a different place in process, and decided in a different way. The IAB should be told to get the conversation rolling on what they want, architecturally, and reflect on ICANN delegation processes a bit more: the (apparently casual) assumption the IAB made that a technical forum can (pretty arbitrarily) define a string in high/top naming space is (IMHO) flawed. The technical *problem* which desires a name may exist: the decision to delegate (or not-delegate or reserve) is huge, as is the consequence of which label is chosen. Thats non-technical.
If we just want to talk about it, since it reflects on DNS activity, one can hardly say DNSOP is the wrong place to just talk. But the likelihood of DNSOP emitting a document which bears on the problem usefully looks low to me. No reflection on the current draft authors intended: there is content in both docs which I suspect the IAB is going to want to draw on. -G On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > This is really well put, Ed. Thanks. I'm a little tempted to plagiarize > you. > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> > wrote: >> >> I have gotten the sense of a belief that IANA (the IANA functions office) >> runs many registries for the IETF and they are not controversial and because >> of this, the issues surrounding the Special Use Domain Name registry are all >> fluff and no substance. But the Special Use Domain Name registry is a >> special case, it is not a run-of-the-mill IANA registry. >> >> The registry is special because the items registered are not bound in a >> narrow scope. The registered items (names) are used in many different >> contexts. This is opposed to protocol parameter registries, where the >> registered item has a very narrow meaning. E.g., "MX" as a mnemonic for the >> numeric value of 15 in the registry for resource records is not treated as a >> conflict with "MX" as the two-letter code for Mexico (not an IANA registry). >> (Ignoring well known use problems with dig.) >> >> There are registries run by IANA like the Special Use Domain Name registry >> when it comes to scope. To name two the IPv4 and IPv6 address registries. >> Addresses and other number parameters (AS numbers) are used in narrow >> contexts but are also seen in other places. The point is that these >> registries are supported by well-developed policies for entering items into >> registries, the Regional Internet Registries have agreed to pan-RIR, global >> policies on these registries. >> >> This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the >> discussions on the topic. Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a >> reflection that the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic. >> That is not an insult because there's a significant difference between the >> function of registration (of anything) and the function of the DNS system. >> Those two topics are often confused and I think that is happening again. >> >> If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period >> and the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it is >> understandable. Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the >> roster of other work represents "time better spent" means that this work >> could be pushed off the table. However, the discussion ought to be resumed >> somewhere else. I think that the Special Use Domain Name registry is needed >> but as it is currently defined, inadequate. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
