On 13 Jun 2020, at 17:39, Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> wrote: > This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but > the venue where such topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I > realise that explicitly opposing such WG calls for adoption is tantamount to > heresy in today’s IETF, but nevertheless I must record my opposition to > adoption.
I agree that the venue for proposing new uses for parts of the namespace (with the singular exception of the ARPA domain) belongs elsewhere. However, I think there are a couple of other things to consider with respect to this particular document: 1. whether this document actually does propose a new use for part of the namespace, or whether it is simply documenting consequences of policies that already exist and which already allow a particular use; 2. whether dnsop gets to make these kinds of decisions; I rather think if there are decisions to be made, it's the IAB that should make them. I appreciate there might be conflicting opinions about both of those, but perhaps the working group is a good place to hold the conversations. Adoption does not seem like an impossible start to those discussions, given that people have put their hands up to review. Asking the IAB to review something also seems like it falls more naturally in the workflow of dealing with a document that is the product of a working group; asking the IAB to express an opinion about whether a working group should be allowed to work on something, on the other hand, seems awkward. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
