This is true. I am being overtly indulgent, to assert my view, and
assert my view hasn't changed. This is thomist logic. It's not very
conducive to consensus because it doesn't converge, it just rebuts.
I do this, because I find the views I am seeing appear to imply a
consensus around other views, which make huge inferential leaps (for
me at least) about loss/damage from being excluded from existing as a
TLD. Why do we necessarily reify these beliefs? Whats the technical
merit in the argument as it stands?
You are a consensus seeker, and I value that. I sense the emerging
consensus, and you will note I allowed my draft to expire and have not
To address the primary question from the WG chairs, I find very hard.
One document is briefer than the other, and despite my own writing
style (!) I value brevity immensely.
On the other hand, the longer documents goes further in recognizing
name processes are really inherently tied to ICANN process more than
technical merit arguments. This pleases me, because I feel drawn to
the view the problems are best expressed as "this is done by somebody
else, in another equity process"
I invite other people to consider technical-needs statements from
parallel WG and standards authors skeptically. Ask yourself what
burden developers would take, if they had to code to a 2LD, and ask
yourself what community burden is taken in the wide, if a new TLD is
allocated in 6761 to break out of the DNS. The primary problem is how
labels express in tools. The omnibox, browser-bar and shell
command-level arguments point to gethostbyname() very very early.
Maybe, thats the underlying fundamental problem here more than
inclusion or exclusion from the DNS? (I have said this before btw,
both here and at the microphone)
The uber-conversation, what kind of name-to-record mapping we want, is
progressing quite nicely. I like Brian Trammell's work. I like Ed's
work recording history (although I could diverge from it) and I don't
think the problem-space overall is not being thought about.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> The problem with this kind of certainty is that it's not conducive to
> reaching consensus. The reality is that there are a broad set of people
> with interest in this question, and they have different beliefs and
> different motivations.
> That's why it's important to go through the exercise of having those people
> say "this is what I see myself losing if (for example) RFC 6761 is
> deprecated with no replacement." And then we see who those people are,
> what they will do if they don't get what they want, and so on.
> The problem with the way you are coming at it is that you are just one of
> those people, and what you lose with your proposed way forward is nothing
> you care about, and what you gain is something you care about a great deal.
> There are many people in the exact same situation in this discussion, but
> with different things that they lose and gain. So we have to all try to
> understand each others' perspectives in order to come up with a way forward
> that can gain consensus. We can't just start arguing over which way
> forward to choose without doing that groundwork first.
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:30 PM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote:
>> None of these named spaces would "fail" to work as sub-spaces of .ALT
>> or .arpa or any other community-led IETF tech community managed label.
>> You haven't convinced me they innately need to exist as a TLD. The
>> sole entrypoint into that model, is a belief in what happens in the
>> browser bar and at the shell.
>> You are the designer of systems of world scale, I do not doubt. But
>> you are bringing an assumption to the table: all things of world scale
>> do not have to exist at the top of the worldwide name space.
>> I remain unconvinced. I remain of the belief, that shutting 6761 down
>> is wiser than racionation over the problem space, without recognizing
>> intractable elements to this problem because its not at root a
>> technology problem: its a name problem. We gave that role to somebody
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:15 AM, hellekin <helle...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA512
>> > On 09/20/2016 01:33 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> >> And I'm still not convinced there is a problem to solve
>> >> (unless the real issue is "how to prevent the registration of .gnu and
>> >> .bit?")
>> > Even if I supported the SUDN of P2P systems draft mentioning both .gnu
>> > and .bit, I see a great deal of difference between them. .gnu (and
>> > .zkey, .exit, .i2p, .onion) all require (and request) an unique NXDOMAIN
>> > response from DNS, and use their respective protocols to resolve from
>> > the "stub resolver" (as mentioned in draft-tldr-sutld-ps-04.) .bit is a
>> > special case in our I-D because it proposes an alternate way of DNS
>> > resolution, not using a delegated tree, but a blockchain. With regard
>> > to DNS, .bit is different from the other five, besides the political
>> > effects of its specific approach (which I think should be able to exist
>> > anyway, for the sake of Internet End-to-End principle if nothing else.)
>> > None of the problem statement drafts took reference of the Special-Use
>> > Domain Names of P2P Systems which initiated this years long discussion
>> > that ended up with: should we revise or replace RFC6761. In my position
>> > of editor of this draft, I don't really care what happens to RFC6761,
>> > but I'm very much interested in .gnu & .zkey, .i2p, .onion & .exit, and
>> > .bit. I don't think any of the proposed problem statement drafts
>> > mention the perspective of actual P2P networks sharing their experience
>> > and their existence, and coming to the table with the idea of abiding to
>> > the IAB rule of a globally unique namespace.
>> > We say: hey, look, we exist, and we want to say that these are not
>> > transactional names: they bear cultural value. They came from usage and
>> > the history of the Internet. The DNS should know about them, so that
>> > people won't ever get into trouble trying to resolve non-existing names,
>> > or trying to resolve eventually delegated names that will collide with
>> > existing networks if they keep being ignored by DNS.
>> > I had the time to appreciate the nuances that IETF members can find in
>> > this seemingly simple approach, and try to generalize the issue: "what
>> > if others come and do the same? Who's responsible? How to judge of the
>> > legitimacy of those claims?" Etc.
>> > But what's been going on, from my point of view of volunteer who only
>> > has one life (that at least we share) and doesn't get paid for this
>> > work, is choking-by-bureaucracy. People whose profession is to sit on
>> > IETF WGs can spend their time not solving issues, they still get food on
>> > the table. And so production of norms is an endless process, and if not
>> > this one, another.
>> > As I see it, the problem we're trying to address is whether these P2P
>> > systems warrant some recognition from the Internet Community, is that
>> > something we want to encourage, or is that something that belongs to
>> > "the Deep Web", and we'd better leave that out of the picture? I'm not
>> > talking about .mail, .corp, and .home, that belong to another category
>> > (I like "toxic waste"), or "people trying to circumvent IANA processes",
>> > or "don't want to pay", or "don't want to follow process". We did
>> > follow process, once we realized there was one. And suddenly, after a
>> > decade, everybody realizes there's an RFC6761 that really shouldn't have
>> > become an RFC in the first place, and this process is flawed, and we
>> > don't know how to handle this. But when the Browser Forum comes with a
>> > deadline, consensus is easily achieved in no time, despite the draft is
>> > flawed with idiotic requirements such as "Users are expected to...".
>> > My take is that none of the proposed statement drafts took care of
>> > situating the debate in its (recent) historical context. The fear of
>> > frictions between IANA and IETF have had more to do with how things
>> > went, than actual ponder of the technical arguments put forth by the
>> > various RFC6761-based drafts. Case by case is not necessarily evil: not
>> > everything can nor should be automated.
>> > I believe that in the case of the 6 TLDs we asked for, there's little
>> > doubt they make sense technically, historically, and culturally. That
>> > others may take it as 'a way in' and flood the IETF with stupid drafts
>> > 'just in case' seems to me the core of the problem, that was mentioned a
>> > few times over the years, but didn't make it through the recent drafts.
>> >> The rest of this email is about
>> >> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-06. Executive summary: no, no
>> >> and no.
>> > This is a great summary, thank you!
>> > ==
>> > hk
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJX4xScXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
>> > ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0
>> > ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg95ckP/0/Ub0IPt7VQWBbjH914gbAP
>> > v1fKjQhuMSUiuYa+KJ7AyYTvTjqH6+NgEx5T/1a5F+tcTlD7rEQ6C4UDYqUTqUBS
>> > fa+H0i3sGkJT7it6vV5sjB9LTLb2Dmxff6uZkeBVtUbrun2Xl9uzBq9+rBloBQN0
>> > 5WDr2ykEbnTIBIM2bbBlhJSpHO6jhLgXhYQkWiFK+7c1zI2X3qNp6dlCnwJ9Gy7d
>> > KNQNUMmBllAepF6kF0kXv07I8cEPjx9bRc6LY5wIW08Sa3j3R0UEtzBoUODFr/oJ
>> > RbIq0bJgK8COZfEzEv6oJ1iDT64JXi2FxlPflBdqgFHiPQSX1Ermm1UtJU1Wrrcb
>> > S/Y6890dyJOa+014KUBdroGeH/MfZLHwKJELi6bs2wENkGp8ye6LwIOeJBOfJ47/
>> > 6Tt7ow+j9y05Xjh9lM1pOlQdlsusLmOHiBQ7cfWb1uo3XYCr5e86cUQ6S/3iBg17
>> > y0WfX1mFjWTvBnrLqMQrXTThiItMT+WN5JzkEcwfMv00oF62DQYh89WPzQ1SVSqQ
>> > vCQbCi5a25JfLtbS/LgJo4diXlnayMhJ5RtQIdBEbej2kO971eoYLxwma8jDB3gv
>> > mV8cJcjg4juj8Rpp0+eYsSNnOSlHcuZoaJBrpgd7XQNejuLZdR5/E3NmY1T+0Kif
>> > vVimJR3aa0C5SQQVFDxM
>> > =1b0u
>> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > DNSOP mailing list
>> > DNSOP@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>> DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP mailing list