Special Use Names Summary
First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion. There were a few
things uncovered which are not in either draft. It does appear that the
draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting
point. Both drafts say useful things, and the chairs would very much
like to see people keep working to get all relevant points into one. The
scoping question of choosing between “What do we think of RFC 6761” and
“What underlying problem do we actually have” came up quite clearly, and
seemed like a key factor to us.
The chairs felt that a limited scope draft was possible, and what we
were looking for. Even with a limited scope draft, we've found we can't
ignore questions about the underlying assumptions behind 6761, both
because they're not fully articulated and because they may not include
several cases we care about. For example:
- what problem do we have because we value uniqueness in domain
names as an architectural principle, regardless of specific strings chosen?
- what problem exists for the IETF even if we say we don’t care
what other groups (ICANN, the Tor Project, open source creators) do?
- what happens if we abandon this work, or deprecate RFC 6761?
There are also several items which need clarifying, which the WG
discussion may also include and the chairs will work on with the IESG
and the IAB as appropriate.
- Describing, as much as possible, how this work interlocks with
ICANN’s policy authority over the DNS root zone
- Providing guidelines for IETF WGs
- Providing guidelines for domain name use outside of the IETF
disposing of some distractions that keep coming up
- Clarifying, to the degree possible, who has process authority
over what (IESG, IAB, this WG, other IETF WGS)
Thanks
Tim/Suzanne
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
