On Mar 7, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 15:56, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: >> 4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to provide >> feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF" for feedback on >> an IP-related protocol document in 4 weeks.) > > Did the IETF (also which?) provide feedback on this similar request for > feedback? > > https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-procedure-for-selecting-a-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-13-01-2023
IETF requests and ICANN requests are handled very differently due to very different communities and different structures for receiving comments. > It seems like the answer is no. Correct. This can be seen at <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-procedure-for-selecting-a-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-13-01-2023/submissions>. It is not clear what the IETF leadership would want to say about how IANA chooses such a name. > Perhaps it would be useful for someone to decide whether these ships are > intentionally passing in the night or whether more attention to navigation is > required. 1) The leadership of both were well aware of what the other was doing. Note that Warren Kumari is both on the IESG and one of the lead developers of SAC113. 2) The two topics are explicitly different: one is for a name that can be used in the DNS (SAC113) when the user wants a name that is not in the DNS root, the other is for a name that is not to be used in the DNS context (alt-tld) when the user wants a name that is not in the DNS root. 3) Literally the only failure case would be if the name chosen by IANA for SAC113 was "alt" because "alt" is not yet in the 6761 registry. That cannot happen because IANA is completely aware of the alt-tld draft and has followed its progression for years. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
