Subject: [DNSOP] chairs' agenda update: special use names in Buenos Aires

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:16:53 -0400

Hi,

We have an agenda item for DNSOP tomorrow to further consider the work the WG has been doing on special-use names.

Last year, after some challenging discussions in the WG and with support from our AD, the chairs determined that the most likely path to a strong analysis and possible solutions was to pursue a problem statement, characterizing the issues we were seeing. It seemed wise to do this before attempting to differentiate among possible solutions, costs, and benefits.

The chairs named a “design team,” which presented their initial draft for discussion in Yokohama. Since then they’ve produced two revisions to the initial draft; the current one can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/>.

There’s also been an entirely separate draft submitted in the last few days, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/>, which has drawn additional comment.

In the interests of moving the discussion forward, the chairs have asked authors of both drafts to prepare a brief joint presentation for the WG for tomorrow’s meeting. We’ve asked them to focus on technical and operational considerations, as it’s easy to get bogged down in abstract assertions about either the philosophy or the politics of “names” (as demonstrated in list traffic the last few days).

We expect discussion to focus on getting to a problem statement that is complete and readable enough to allow the WG to move towards gathering and evaluating possible solutions in the near future.

Suzanne & Tim