Hi Rob,
On Oct 19, 2022, at 08:54, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
<rwilton=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> The reason for my interjection is only because I’ve seen some comments
> stating that this topic is too hard, we can’t get rough consensus, and hence
> the WG should give up and declare defeat. However, from my reading of the
> thread, I’m not convinced that the WG is necessarily that far away from rough
> consensus, particularly on the significant (i.e., most important) parts of
> the draft. Nor, if the WG declares failure, do I see a better path forward.
Another path forward would be for the IETF (in some appropriate guise) to make
an architectural statement to the effect that
- the DNS is the principal naming system of Internet architecture, as defined
and maintained by the IETF
- the DNS is arguably the most successful global naming system in the history
of humankind, and consequently is significantly embedded in the minds and
experience of end-users and in the design of software
- it is natural that other naming systems be developed from time to time,
outside the IETF
- it is natural that such naming systems might emulate particular aspects of
the DNS, such as the format and presentation of names
- the design, implementation and operation of such naming systems is not the
IETF's business
- the accommodation and interoperability of such naming systems with the DNS
or other IETF naming systems is not the IETF's business
Then perhaps we could just get on with talking about the DNS and not about
accommodating other naming systems that may or may not exist today or in the
future and the speculative union of namespaces that is larger than that of the
DNS in ways that are not well-defined and not within the IETF's realm of
control.
It is impossible by definition for the IETF to exert influence or control over
all other naming systems that are developed and maintained outside the IETF. I
don't think we should waste more time trying.
That said,
> Some participants have indicated that they don’t support this document
> because they don’t think that it will end up being useful (principally
> because the other naming systems may still squat on TLDs anyway), but that
> they are also not opposed to publishing this document because they also see
> that it won’t cause harm either. I regard these views as being within rough
> consensus of publishing this document.
This is kind of my position, except that the real reason I am not especially
opposed to this document is that I hope by publishing it we can end this
conversation and get back to working on the DNS. In other words the reason for
my lack of objection (my negative monologues notwithstanding) is that what I
really want is for this to be the final word on the subject.
Perhaps a quick draft outlining the principles embedded in my bullets above
could be published alongside the alt-tld draft to make it more clear that
alt-tld really is the final word.
I'll note also that alt-tld being the final word and an IETF registry being
created to document non-IETF naming systems in the future are inconsistent
ideas. Creating a registry seems like a terrible idea to me for that reason.
If there is consensus around the idea that alt-tld, if published, could be made
clearly the final word on accommodating naming systems present and future that
are not of the IETF, then I am willing to spend time on this.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
