On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Eliot Lear wrote:
Let's please leave Internet lawyering to lawyers. If people want a legal opinion on this draft, the IETF does have resources for that.
But it is to the core of the ICANN / IETF divide, so IETF shouldn't wade into ICANN territory.
We cannot assume that DNS will forever be the only Good approach and that all others will forever be Bad. Given that, we as a community are obligated to search for better, and to try new things.
Sure. The IETF method is to start a BoF, form a WG, do your thing. See Speedy/QUIC. See SSL/TLS, See PGP/OpenPGP.
There exist many registries for things the IETF doesn't recommend. One need look no further than TLS 1.3 crypto-suites as an example.
These are not equivalent. For TLS to interop with non-IETF stuff, they need codepoints for within the IETF defined TLS protocol. They are not replacing TLS with something else on port 443. (and on top, non-TLS WG entries are marked as NOT RECOMMENDED)
No matter what we say in the ALT draft, someone could burden the IETF with a new draft. People do so every day. If it gains sufficient support, it would have to be at least considered, no matter the topic.
Sure, but "replacing DNS with something else", would definitely not be in dnsop, or the ISE, but via BoF and a new WG. I dout any of the alternatives would follow that approach, especially as I cannot see us starting a new (replacement or not) naming scheme where there is a new landrush for domain names with all of its ICANNlike associated problems. I can see DNS 2.0 that replaces all of DNS, but would still hook into the existing EPP and RRR ICANN model though. Again, that would not go via the ISE path. Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
