Subject: [DNSOP] fwd: New Version Notification for draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-03.txt

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:29:03 +0200

Dear WG,

during the Buenos Aires meeting, the -02 version of "Problem Statement for the 
Reservation of Top-Level Domains in the Special-Use Domain Names Registry"
had been delivered as the result of the design team, with that design team
subsequently dissolved.  As co-authors, we felt that the comments
on readability, clarity and focus had been very constructive, so we had been 
using the time since to factor these in to streamline the document. 
We would now like to offer the -03 version as an alternative starting point
for the WG.  You will see some changes in the co-authors' list, based on 
availability and text contribution.

Regards,
  Peter

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----

A new version of I-D, draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Alain Durand and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem
Revision:	03
Title:		Problem Statement for the Reservation of Top-Level Domains in the Special-Use Domain Names Registry
Document date:	2016-05-24
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		8
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-03.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-03
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-03

Abstract:
   The dominant protocol for name resolution on the Internet is the
   Domain Name System (DNS).  However, other protocols exist that are
   fundamentally different from the DNS, and may or may not share the
   same namespace.

   When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that
   supports multiple, different protocols (or resolution mechanisms), it
   is desirable that the protocol used is unambiguous, and that requests
   intended for one protocol are not inadvertently answered using
   another.

   RFC 6761 introduced a framework by which a particular domain name
   could be acknowledged as being special.  Various challenges have
   become apparent with this application of the guidance provided in RFC
   6761.  This document aims to document those challenges in the form of
   a problem statement in order to facilitate further discussion of
   potential solutions.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Peter Koch              |                          |          [email-masked]
DENIC eG                |                          |       +49 69 27235-0
Kaiserstra�e 75-77      |                          |
60329 Frankfurt am Main |                          | https://www.DENIC.DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eingetr. Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main
Vorstand: Helga Kr�ger, Martin K�chenthal, Andreas Musielak, Dr. J�rg Schweiger
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:13:15 -0400

> availability and text contribution.

Thanks for doing this, Peter.   It looks from the diff like it's a complete
rewrite.   My initial impression is that it's a substantial improvement,
but I haven't looked at it closely yet.   I'm currently still inclined to
continue updating the other document, but I'd be happy to send you
suggestions as well if you would find it helpful.   From my perspective
this looks like a better basis for discussion than your previous document.