Subject: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 16:56:13 -0400

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

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:36:06 -0700

> seemed like a key factor to us.

Thank you  for doing this, sieving the discussion  on the adoption was
no small effort.

>     - 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?
>     - Clarifying, to the degree possible, who has process authority over
> what (IESG, IAB, this WG, other IETF WGS)

We have previously sent liason statements to ICANN to make them aware of
this work. Personally I would expect that a future liaison statement on
outcomes would need to be supported by an ietf consensus call so I look
to us being able to offer guidance for such a statement.

> Thanks
> 
> Tim/Suzanne
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: hellekin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:44:01 +0000

> Special Use Names Summary

Hello DNSOP WG,

I let a week pass so that others can comment, but apparently this
summary didn't bring much of them.  Indeed I have a troubling issue with
it: how is that actionable?  IOW, what's next?

Thank you,

==
hk

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:19:49 -0400

New version of tldr draft is in the works.   When done, criticism
solicited.   Please, please bear in mind that the point of this
document is not to say what to do, but merely to enumerate as complete
a set of problems as we can enumerate.   The point is not that we are
going to solve every one of the problem documented in the draft, but
that we want to identify all the problems people consider important,
so that when we start to think about solutions, we can systematically
evaluate how each part of a solution would impact each of the problems
we've identified.

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:32:30 -0400

Hi,

Thanks Ted, and more formally:

The WG has adopted https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/> as a DNSOP working group document. As Ted said, the original authors are working on a revision to it, based on the discussion we just had for a first set of changes. It will be posted to the I-D repository as a work item for the WG.

Now that we have a problem statement, the authors are editors on behalf of the WG. The goal is a version of the problem statement that can be published as the WG consensus Informational RFC.

Beyond that the next task is to reach consensus on what steps, if any, the WG thinks the IETF should take to change the situation we’ve identified. (The chairs will need to provide some guidance on the respective roles of the IETF, the IAB, and the WG, but that’s more for discussion of solutions than for the problem statement, and a brief note from the chairs on it is already in the works.) 

thanks,
Suzanne (for the chairs)

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
>