Which demands pretty direct pushback on the AD and WG chairs, because otherwise, we're just building a huge queue of pent-up demand for names. Names we might decide we don't think should happen, or happen a different way.
If we allow WG adoption in another WG of something which heads into an active disputed area in here, I think we're making a huge rod for our own backs. I understand why people want things like .HOME, but I am very unkeen to have parallel discussions of the social utility of these names, while we are actively discussing process and external body roles. So.. cross-WG and AD discussion time? please? -G On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Tim WIcinski <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use Domain > Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has a direction. > > On 11/5/15 10:11 AM, George Michaelson wrote: > > So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible > emerging homenet desire for .home? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/ > > because I believe this isn't just the tail of odd requests from the tor > people for various hash based names.. its another WG inside the IETF > process thinking "oh.. .onion worked, so lets go do one" > > -G > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
