Paul:
It is not the ISE that is ignoring RFC 6761, but this group. 6761
envisioned this precise case. For whatever reason, that document didn't
take the next step and actually reserve a TLD. Sometimes it is
reasonable to do things incrementally. But what is not reasonable to
expect
+1
This feels like a process run-around. The conversation has been held
in DNSOP and didn't reach consensus. It is not like the WG said "we
don't care" -the WG cared immensely. It just couldn't come to a single
point of view.
A lot of the issues are layer-8/9 and I think it's most likely this is
On Aug 1, 2022, at 08:31, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
wrote:
>
I do not think the ISE should ignore or be a workaround for RFC 6761 Special
Use Domains. There any many problems with its application and its lack of
application but adding the ISE as a third party along with the
It appears that Paul Vixie said:
>i'm particularly interested in whether the root zone should have an NS
>for the private-label tld(s) (.alt or ._alt or whatever) with an NS of
>"localhost" and a dnssec "opt out" indicator so that these private tlds
>can fit into the authenticity
It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
said:
> On the one hand, we need to find a
>way for people to explore alternative namespaces that look a bit like
>domain names. On the other hand, we don't want to create problems with
>user expectations.
It is fine for people to
On 8/1/22 12:01, Paul Vixie wrote:
I agree and I think publication of these drafts would be a good idea
(may be with status Experimental since, as Joe Abley said, there is
clearly no IETF consensus). Note that I am skeptical about their use:
most people who "preempt" .eth, .bitcoin, .web3 or
Excerpts from Stephane Bortzmeyer's message of 2022-08-01 17:29:38 +0200:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0200,
> Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote
> a message of 89 lines which said:
>
> > Whether that means using TLD labels that begin with _ or whether
> > that means
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote on 2022-08-01 08:29:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0200,
Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote
a message of 89 lines which said:
...
I agree and I think publication of these drafts would be a good idea
(may be with status Experimental since,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0200,
Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote
a message of 89 lines which said:
> Whether that means using TLD labels that begin with _ or whether
> that means suffixing them with ".ALT", I leave to you experts to
> sort. I do agree with Martin
On Aug 1, 2022, at 15:58, Ben Schwartz
wrote:
> I think we already have such a mechanism: ICANN. People who want unique
> registrations can acquire them via the existing ICANN and registry processes.
I think we have been around and around these arguments at the ietf and in
various parts of
Hello from your friendly neighborhood independent submissions editor.
It is indeed the case that draft-schanzen-gns is in conflict review. It
is also the case that Warren and I have been discussing that review.
Obviously there are some concerns. On the one hand, we need to find a
way for
I have no problem to understand the need and wish to test new configuration
before it is alive, but I do not think that it is correct to increase the
complexity of the DNSSEC protocol as the draft suggests. There are other ways
to achieve the same goal.
Zonemaster (https://zonemaster.net/) and
12 matches
Mail list logo
