Hi,
We have an agenda item for DNSOP tomorrow to further consider the work the WG
has been doing on special-use names.
Last year, after some challenging discussions in the WG and with support from
our AD, the chairs determined that the most likely path to a strong analysis
and possible solutions was to pursue a problem statement, characterizing the
issues we were seeing. It seemed wise to do this before attempting to
differentiate among possible solutions, costs, and benefits.
The chairs named a “design team,” which presented their initial draft for
discussion in Yokohama. Since then they’ve produced two revisions to the
initial draft; the current one can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/>.
There’s also been an entirely separate draft submitted in the last few days,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/>, which has drawn
additional comment.
In the interests of moving the discussion forward, the chairs have asked
authors of both drafts to prepare a brief joint presentation for the WG for
tomorrow’s meeting. We’ve asked them to focus on technical and operational
considerations, as it’s easy to get bogged down in abstract assertions about
either the philosophy or the politics of “names” (as demonstrated in list
traffic the last few days).
We expect discussion to focus on getting to a problem statement that is
complete and readable enough to allow the WG to move towards gathering and
evaluating possible solutions in the near future.
Suzanne & Tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
