The authors of this draft was alerted when -00 was initially submitted
that this approval needed to pass through DNSOP.
On 11/5/15 10:19 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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 list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
