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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 21, 2016, at 8:31 PM, George Michaelson <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
