On 26 Jul 2015, at 3:06, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I wanted to follow up to the list to try again to make clear what I said in > the DNSOP meeting the other day. > > In the first place, the point I was trying to make in the "business model" > remark is just this: some of the drafts trying to register special-use names > that Christian Grothoff talked about hive out of the DNS uses of names that > create a resolution system only in some special network context. So, just as > local. marks something as to be looked up only with mDNS, onion. and exit. > both mark something as to be looked up only under onion routing (or maybe, > depending on your view, only using Tor). But others of these proposals, such > as bit., mark out a name space and associated protocol that competes with the > DNS. > It is a fully parallel name resolution universe, applicable to absolutely any > network application. My point was that the second class of these basically > puts us in the position of approving a special-use registration that is > effectively an attack on someone else's business model (ICANN's and that of > the various registries and registrars). I believe that draws the IETF into a > political battle for which it is unprepared, and that's really why I object > to these registrations.
I agree with this differentiation. > In the second place, I only now (while checking the recording to make sure I > didn't say anything inconsistent with the above) saw Ted Lemon's remarks in > the chat. In response, I don't see what the fact of my being IAB chair has > to do with any of this: the IAB chair (and indeed the IAB) has no special > power with respect to these > registrations. Additionally, in any case I did not get up as IAB chair and I > should like to hope it was clear I was speaking only as an individual (but in > case it was not, let me emphasise now that I was). > While it is true that I have made the argument more than once, I think it is > a principled argument and given that these applications continue to be under > consideration I see nothing wrong with repeating the arugment. Finally, I > don't believe I have ever accused people of being bad actors on this and I > should like very much a pointer to an example of my saying that; but in any > case, should I somehow ever have said that let me be clear that I do not > think _ad hominem_ arguments are valid and I don't think "bad actor" would be > a reason to reject an application. I am worried about the consequences for > the IETF here, not the moral state of the people who are proposing a > registration 1. I personally did not misunderstand you. 2. IAB do have a special role here as it is IAB that: 2.1. Is the party responsible for .ARPA 2.2. Is the party that have made statements like for example RFC 2826 I hope and take for granted IAB, and because of that that you WHEN you speak on behalf of IAB strongly protect these things. Unless IAB first change the situation by saying something else. Patrik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
