Hi all, and not picking on John…. I think this subthread on process and policy has gone as far as we reasonably can in a DNSOP review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot. We’ve established that different constraints and expectations apply to policy for different portions of the namespace, and that the HOMENET WG believes those differences have been taken into account, and that not everyone in DNSOP agrees.
Please share any new thoughts on how the specified protocol in the draft interoperates with the global public DNS, particularly with regards to DNSSEC or possibly incompatible uses of the namespace, which seem to be within our chartered scope. I believe the process and policy concerns we’ve raised here can be revisited in an additional request for review or an IETF Last Call, if needed. thanks, Suzanne > On Mar 23, 2017, at 10:00 AM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> The working group is aware of the "wait many years" part of this approach, >> and is willing to try and see. If the working group sees no progress over >> the course of the next few years, we may shift to the latter approach. > > Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the homenet WG who regularly > engages with ICANN, through AC's or SO's or the like? > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
