I am not sure at this point, but I suspect the objection had to do with
section 6.3 of the -02 document that was published before Buenos Aires:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-02

Both documents mention 2860, and I don't see anything in particular to
disagree with about how the adpkja document references it, or, indeed, how
it referenced it in the -02 version.   However, the old section 6.3 does
remind me of some things I heard people objecting to in BA.


On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Alain Durand <alain.dur...@icann.org>
wrote:

>
> > On Sep 21, 2016, at 8:31 PM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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"
>
> This is an interesting observation, as one of the comments we have
> received many times about the first revisions of draft-adpkja was that the
> references to ICANN were not helping. We even took heat for mentioning
> 2860...
>
> I guess this reflects on the multitude of diverging opinions on the
> subject.
>
> Alain.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to