On 10/08/2013 12:52 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
However I think a reasonable conclusion from the stalemates that have arisen from all of
the previous attempts over the years would be, "There is no agreement on how to
proceed, so we should not proceed."
That is the opposite of the feeling that I got from the DNSOP meeting in Berlin.
... and yet, there is a larger world outside the select few able to
attend the meetings. :) One could even reasonably argue that the
opinion of those who do attend the meetings is of questionable
statistical validity due to volunteer bias.
But have we any evidence that if created, this mechanism will be used?
IIRC, there were at least a few TLD operators at the DNSOP WG in Berlin who
indicated they would strongly consider it.
Translated, "The idea does not suck so much that we feel comfortable
rejecting it out of hand, but we have no real interest in it."
I personally don't subscribe to the "If we build it, they will come" school of
engineering. We have too many counterexamples in the DNS already.
That's fine; neither you or I (currently) run a TLD and we don't have to think
about it yet. This is for the people do run TLDs, and the multitude who are
going to be doing so soon.
... which leads back to my previously expressed concern that the gTLD
RRA framework may specifically prevent this kind of child-to-parent
signaling from being possible.
To save everyone time and further responses, I've seen all the
counter-arguments, and have followed the most recent thread in addition
to the previous ones. I stand by my analysis that this is a solution in
search of a problem, and that limited resources could be better spent
elsewhere; for whatever that analysis is worth.
Doug
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
