> On Mar 23, 2021, at 3:50 PM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is there an issue with putting SVCB info in the TLD zones? >> If I interpret this ICANN document correctly >> (https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html#exhibitA.1), >> there are strict limitations on the info that can be put in the TLD zones. > > Indeed. It is possible to get these contracts to be amended. But it will take > endless rounds of meetings, task forces and consultations before an > appropriate board resolution could be passed and implemented. Good luck with > that...
Yes, I completely agree that the bureaucratic challenge in fixing that idiocy
is very, very high.
> What would be the point of putting SVCB records in a TLD (or the root)? It
> seems like a remarkably bad idea to me.
Why?
There are a million clever and useful things that you could do, if it were
possible. Which are particularly valuable for brand TLDs, for instance.
What arguments exist against it? Was there some justification, back when that
language was put in? I’ve always assumed it was just existing registries
trying to gratuitously jerk new ones around.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
