Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-tldr-sutld-ps-01.txt

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:32:01 -0400

Apologies for taking so long to get this out.   Despite the delay, I still
believe that this document represents a better starting point for the
discussion of the special-use name problem.

I believe that the right way to approach this problem is to try to
enumerate, without judgment, all of the problems that people are aware of
that are not problems with potential solutions.

Having done so, we can then enumerate, again without judgement, the
potential solutions to each problem, which will likely be mutually
contradictory.

Having done _that_, then I think we will be in a position to make a fully
informed decision from the set of alternatives that we have identified,
based on the end result that we want to achieve or avoid.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:15 PM
Subject: I-D Action: draft-tldr-sutld-ps-01.txt
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

        Title           : Special-Use Names Problem Statement
        Authors         : Ted Lemon
                          Ralph Droms
                          Warren Kumari
        Filename        : draft-tldr-sutld-ps-01.txt
        Pages           : 15
        Date            : 2016-06-29

Abstract:
   The Special-Use Domain Names registration policy in RFC 6761 has been
   shown through experience to present unanticipated challenges.  This
   memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive, of the problems
   that have been identified.  In addition it reviews the history of
   Domain Names and summarizes current IETF and non-IETF publications
   relating on special-use domain names.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tldr-sutld-ps-01

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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:17:43 +1000

I won't be in Berlin, but I think this draft deserves discussion. It's
simple, focussed on the problem statement side.

[ I'm speaking from left field, since I think the best course right
now is to shut the process down, but I don't see a problem-statement
as a problem in that light: all the problems solve nicely if we shut
the door! ]

I think the one major issue (for me at least) is that the implication
the IAB through draft/RFC process *can* assign a name remains. I don't
personally think it makes sense to leave open the option to bypass
ICANN process. I think you might want to state a problem as something
like:

"how can we best codify competing peer SDO process, into what the IAB
regards as a proper sequence of events to allow IETF requests to be
handled appropriately by ICANN"

Because without that, you leave the implication open that names can
just be taken, irrespective of what people in ICANN might say. And,
whilst they aren't technical standards, there are standards in how
they decide to delegate names.

Your 'assertion of authority' item goes close maybe: If we accept the
authority token moved, then we should recognize a process which
doesn't respect the authority token handoff is .. broken.

-G

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>