I know it had that clause Brian. I kept the document short. I think the
clause was a sanity clause whose invokation was basically insane. We should
not have formalized a process on it, it should have been something done on
very mature consideration. Instead, we've had a very immature conversation
and now have .onion, the mDNS outcome in .local and the queue of me-too at
the door.

I've discussed this with other people. We don't agree, but there is a sense
that if there is a bar it was set ludicrously low.

So I wrote this document to tease the conversation out.

Without wanting to get pejorative, and understanding there are
sensitivities here, can I ask a very basic question, which you may be able
to answer, but its about *US* not about *YOU* so please don't feel
objectified.

Why is it, in the IETF, we find it so hard collectively to say "we made a
mistake" ?

-George

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi George,
>
> >    RFC 6761 [RFC6761] specified mechanisms for reserving a top level
> >    name in the DNS.
> >
> >    This reversed a prior decision documented by RFC 2860 [RFC2860] to
> >    close off mechanisms for name assignment in the IETF, the function
> >    being recognized as vesting with ICANN.
>
> That is 100% incorrect. RFC 2860 clause 4.3 states explicitly and for
> the exact purpose of *not* closing off assignments in all cases:
>
>    Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as
>    domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised
>    address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c)
>    experimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues, and
>    shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section 4.
>
> So whatever the technical merits of your proposal, such names and address
> blocks remain under the IETF's authority. That doesn't mean the IETF
> should blunder around with its eyes closed, but if we want .heffelump.
> to be reserved for a technical purpose, we can so decide.
>
> (I am not on the dnsop list so please keep me in cc.)
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to