On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Warren Kumari wrote:

On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:

      So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, 
this discussion is why.  You are
      both taking past reach other because you are looking at only the part of 
the problem you care about.

... and why we need a Special Use Names problem statement, and not just a 
RFC6761 problem statement. This problem is
bigger than just 6761...

I still do not see that. Without 6761, if anyone wants to ask for a TLD,
whether to delegate or never delegate, we (IETF) can say: That is
outside the area of our expertise - you must go to ICANN.

ICANN already has a blacklist of unsafe domains. IETF can advise them
on that list if needed.

I don't think at this point either ICANN or IETF would want to add TLDs
to the unsafe list. If at this point someone is still squatting domain
names, they get what they deserve. And all the known security risky
domains (as a result of decades of use of unqualified domain names)
are already known at ICANN, and they won't assign these. People creating
new ones are also going against the long standing don't squat advise,
and need no further protection from their own foot bullets.

So that brings the problem statement to:

        IETF had the power to allocate or ban domain names based on the
        Special Names RFC-6761. IETF no longer wants that power.

And the solution for that is a 6761bis document that confirms this.

Paul

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to