Re: [DNSOP] draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Mon, 01 August 2022 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E0DC14F73B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IUzHaITsETEU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CE1CC14F73D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id ss3so20619061ejc.11 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=8tQfprYlpmDn2UVIHv2X/1gAo3t7fyNWIMCK6/S+/78=; b=EECH2AF3uxUtwb5YrqtH5T383MJG6OXud9wCip8zphT+VlrNWNgVxfD24BALZRtp4H uK3YoVmyRhteqs/zV3dHzrzeT4WosDezgFnkbEu/5jWjb4JLYP5UjfKrjucENlQR0SH2 rPPHFam8rZ8RwPvkXGwTALmllcvrkPqGy6HAw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=8tQfprYlpmDn2UVIHv2X/1gAo3t7fyNWIMCK6/S+/78=; b=s/DwNeEZTc9cyb5c118hOciQBskqc2Qy2kHHL+D8imrRRbdLabuJ3VTzAfzVRSXs4M Wa4eMAkeGd6Xf6uiOD4HL9KFPQAO8pmnC9IiEOOPasE5TO2AtorIt7mjC9YjdcSqVUYc MX92cyHqcBbGF4rQsjeKaFSa4htdJczaxnB55x1hBx6K55HTLrr5QvRXXY5kGpnW4sWw LyF6QjkAMAdiDjLx2ZR6SrIliEh0VcnbaICQ9CT3DXeyfp3/1OYen1FNqE2sCp8lKa+s rjvUWX7lkDRAxZUVVHpJ/cJRRNEwFO1xtTogGsq8Sm2V3wVhWHVw4t5RGogMfAKHwsAY eKHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8CahzzF67XYZggp+0PFAcOCwJHtgUWIt5iX+LJfTH5qlVka1c+ oK6U02eNlrD6qYkori3RfQ4JrXkj80iEQEK/Ouk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1ubW1y01MZczdl3nsVBHWxxKxIziMRwJtdByYC0r3hikwADxl1QbevPgpOqUnY6p+aM3XZgaQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:e89:b0:72b:3059:a8c3 with SMTP id ho9-20020a1709070e8900b0072b3059a8c3mr12406376ejc.613.1659364020811; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (dhcp-077-250-046-077.chello.nl. [77.250.46.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f23-20020a05640214d700b0043cb4db0012sm6844480edx.77.2022.08.01.07.26.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 16:26:58 +0200
Message-Id: <47468647-27C7-44B2-BEB0-BA49B6E44499@hopcount.ca>
References: <CAHbrMsBhEzVYx+qd+XA=X6Hy+gFxY8HF-hp8dtkxsXs9_5E7jw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsBhEzVYx+qd+XA=X6Hy+gFxY8HF-hp8dtkxsXs9_5E7jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19G71)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/8H7jl4dKBX0kvCN5w-NvvmT43bk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:27:07 -0000

On Aug 1, 2022, at 15:58, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I think we already have such a mechanism: ICANN.  People who want unique registrations can acquire them via the existing ICANN and registry processes.

I think we have been around and around these arguments at the ietf and in various parts of the icann community so many times that there's hardly any point in taking another run at them.

My observation from being in variously in middle and on the edges of several of these discussion is that there is no clear consensus around any of this: no consensus that there is a problem to solve, no consensus on what a solution would look like to any particular problem and no consensus about the proper venue for any architectural or governance decision that might hope to implement any particular solution. 

We have had proposals in ICANN ACs, questions considered by the ICANN board, proposals in working groups at the IETF and now proposals in the ISE queue.

While it seems entirely reasonable that an independent submission might have something to say (there is no shortage of individual opinions) I think it would be unfortunate if a document that wound up in the RFC series gave the impression that it contained something resembling an IETF position or community consensus when it didn't because there isn't one. 

I appreciate independent-stream boilerplate and other cautionary notes within the document ought to be able to make this clear, but I have my doubts about whether that clarity be obvious in practice to anybody making reference to the document.

[If I was on the IESG giving advice to the ISE I would argue that this disconnect between individual opinion and the clear lack of group consensus represented a conflict. I am not on the IESG, however, for which everybody can be thankful, hence the brackets around this paragraph.]

Perhaps it would be a kindness for someone to write a document that said that there was no consensus around any of this. Such a document might provide some incentive to stop trying to find some and we can all move on with our lives. 


Joe