> Il 04/08/2022 08:40 CEST Martin Schanzenbach <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> ha
> scritto:
>
> Anyway, going to ICANN in order to collect a TLD is not a reasonable process
> for
> publishing our draft.
> We would not even know what the process would be (after the RFC? before
> writing it? While writing it? What if ICANN denies a request? All the
> work is moot?)
> Similarly using "www.example.com!gns" et al. is not a reasonable change.
> As that impairs usability and is incompatible with applications that
> expect domain names.
The problem is that your entire project is conceptually and politically flawed.
If you want to establish an alternative namespace to the DNS, then you should
not use DNS-compatible names.
If you want to establish a different way to create or redefine actual DNS names
in a non-local, shareable way, like your draft seems to do for "example.pet",
then you are going to break the uniqueness of the Internet and you should be
damned.
If you want to establish a different way to resolve actual DNS names, then you
should come here and propose a revision of the DNS protocol, or an entire new
protocol to replace it, and have it standardized by the IETF, or rejected if
the community disagrees with you.
Also, if you think that your project requires a valid TLD in the existing DNS
namespace, then you should get one following the same procedures as everybody
else, which means either applying for a string to ICANN, or getting an IETF
Standards Action specification as required by RFC 6761 section 4. An
independent RFC would not meet these requirements, and I do not see why the ISE
should ever publish it, except to create more confusion and more arguments.
More generally speaking, the DNS today is both a several billion dollars
industry and a fundamental, regulated instrument for the political and
socioeconomical stability of the entire world, way more than it is an IETF
protocol. People are free to introduce politically motivated attempts to
disrupt the current balance, but they should not expect cooperation, not any
well-behaved global institution should provide any. Even if some of us may
individually like the idea, as an institution the IETF is part of a bigger
arrangement that it cannot unilaterally challenge without losing its face.
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
