On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> well, i've argued new gtld registry operators in general do not benefit from
> a manditory v6 reachability requirement at transition to delegation, a
> position unpopular with v6 evangelicals and others who suppose that new gtld
> registry operators will exist to serve "the next billion users" rather than
> to offer alternate name space views to the existing {b,m}illions of v4
> addressed spindles.
>
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6 capabilities in the next year or two.
It's not that I think you only serve the future. It's that we think you are
failing to recognize that IPv6 is now
and that what is IPv4 today will be at least dual-stack tomorrow.
> related, i've argue that new gtld registry operators in general do not
> benefit from a manditory dnssec requirement, a position unpopular with dnssec
> evangelicals and others who suppose that new gtld registry operators will
> exist to serve ecommerce with sufficient generality, persistence, and volume
> to make them more attractive targets for rational economic exploits than
> existing, unsigned zones.
>
> for those not keeping track, icann's laundry list of mandatory to implements
> includes v6 reachibility, and dnssec, shortly after the date of contract, so
> significantly prior to the operator acquiring operational experience, and of
> course, cctlds, and existing gtlds, are under no obligation to sign their
> zones.
>
The latter part of that paragraph is an unfortunate artifact of a pre-existing
contract without those requirements.
I would expect those requirements to be added at contract renewal.
> i don't think of these positions as "naysaing" either v6 or dnssec, just the
> it-must-be-done-now claims of urgency and universality of some of the
> respective advocates for "sensible stuff", who because they hold the right
> opinion, inform icann's ssac.
>
I think that the requirements are reasonable and that it is unfortunate that
they cannot be added to the existing GTLD contracts.
Owen
