On Jun 13, 2020, at 2:39 PM, Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> wrote: > I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of policy > regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades ago, and > in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such discussions should > take place within the open policy forums hosted by ICANN (however torturous > and dysfunctional that may be), and accepting this document within the remit > of the IETF DNSOP working group is contrary to this earlier IETF action.
Wearing my terminology hat: what do you mean by "DNS namespace"? That is not a term that the IETF has adopted, but there are other terms that the IETF and this WG have defined, most recently in RFC 8499. I ask because a document about private use names is *explicitly* outside of the "global DNS", the term we adopted for what I think you messily termed "DNS namespace". RFC 8499 defines "domain name" as applying "to systems other than the DNS". It also defines "private DNS", which is exactly what this document is about. Wearing my "yes, I work for ICANN" hat: why on earth would you want ICANN to have any say in the selection of private use names? There is a good reason that this very community put that outside the scope of our charter. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
