Suzanne Woolf <[email protected]> writes: > 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything > for any particular purpose.
No, but it does make the recommendation to use unreserved space. But it "proposes that nay of them can be used by a network or application for private use." [section 5]. Fundamentally, the end effect is the same: we recommend you use these "unreserved" code points. The net effect in real world traffic will likely be the same (by design). And the net effect in policy will likely be the same: a potential collision that forces other organizations to never register them because the defacto standard created by this non-registration would be to treat it like it was a registration. [see .onion] > 2. If we want to know what ICANN-the-organization thinks of this > proposal, there is a mechanism for asking that question. The IAB, on > behalf of the IETF, maintains a liaison relationship with ICANN, in > the form of a non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, who > can be asked to convey a question or statement about an issue of > mutual interest. Yes, but they didn't do that. I do suggest we do just that before accepting this as a viable path forward. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
