IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Tue, 28 January 2014 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399CE1A0361 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:05:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxKlzKdaE33u for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0D91A023A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E8752421976; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:05:48 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140128052645.15660.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:05:48 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD5E291E-34A0-4AB1-A94A-027848BA553F@rfc1035.com>
References: <20140128052645.15660.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:05:56 -0000

On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:26, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> What, if anything, is the plan for dealing the predictable complaints
> from applicants who (not totally unreasonably) would feel that the
> rug's been yanked out from under them?

Why would they complain or "have the rug yanked from under them"? [Note too that the draft uses SHOULD and not MUST.] Whatever happens with this draft is unlikely to have any impact on ICANN's current list of new gTLDs. The draft might however become another input into the risk mitigation framework that ICANN is now developing. ie There might be additional measures in place before .home (say) can proceed to delegation. That should not surprise anyone here.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email