Indeed….Please keep in mind we’re not talking about a final document here.
While it would be nice to have a document that was almost ready for WG
consensus, there’s room to discuss the final scope in the WG.
The “toxic waste” names are a “use case” in the sense that people keep asking
about. The identified need for a default namespace in the homenet protocols
represents another use case.
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> What is out of scope of the problem statement is saying what to do about
> them. :)
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:32 AM, David Cake <d...@davecake.net
> <mailto:d...@davecake.net>> wrote:
> I tend to think that they may be within scope for the problem statement, but
> it is likely that existing solutions (e.g. ICANN refusing to delegate them
> while they remain toxic) are adequate to deal with the problem.
> > On 19 Sep 2016, at 8:47 AM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com
> > <mailto:jo...@taugh.com>> wrote:
> >> Dealing with toxic waste names is out of scope for the problem statement.
> > Well, that's one theory. Let's see of other people agree.
> > R's,
> > John
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, jo...@taugh.com <mailto:jo...@taugh.com>, Taughannock
> > Networks, Trumansburg NY
> > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> > <https://jl.ly/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org <mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>
> DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP mailing list