What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure toxicity. We 
could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and maybe then define a 
threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that particular string.

I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this list in 
6761 is problematic, for the reason mentioned in section 3.f of darft-adpkja:

"f.  [RFC6761] does not have provision for subsequent management of
       the registry, such as updates, deletions of entries, etc…”


> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:10 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> This is the toxic waste bit.  The names don't make sense in the 6761
> special use registry, since they're not being used in any way that is
> or can be standardized, but they also aren't suitable for delegation
> due to widespread de facto use.  I also expect that if we redid last
> year's debate in anything like the same way, we'd have the same
> result, one or two highly motivated people who work for TLD applicants
> would sabotage it.
> As I hardly need tell you, it is utterly unclear whether it makes more
> sense to have the IETF reserve them or, to switch hats and encourage
> ICANN to put them on a list of names that aren't in use but can't be
> delegated as SAC045 suggests.
> One reason that the latter makes slightly more sense is that it's
> likely that some of those names will eventually become less polluted,
> so the list needs to be reconsidered every once in a while (years.)
> For example, I gather that it's been a decade since Belkin stopped
> making routers that leak .belkin traffic, and at some point most of
> them will be gone.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to