Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:15:23PM +1100, James Mitchell wrote:
>> If deployed software does not work with a TLD, it is the TLD owner who loses. 
> I'm sorry, but that claim is arrant nonsense.  We _all_ lose.  The
> IETF is supposed to be about interoperability, and if stuff breaks
> because we have decided, "We don't care lalalalalala I can't hear
> you there isn't a problem," then we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

I don't think anyone is doing this, rather it is the normal situation of trying to strike a balance between 100% backwards compatibility (which limits future innovation) and ignoring the installed base (which breaks things).

> I think Joe's pragmatic approach is the right one: document right now
> that whatever the restrictions might historically have been, we are
> quite explicitly going to permit at the very least one class of
> labels.

I would agree that it is important to document existing reality and hence believe the draft should move forward.

> If people feel strongly that in fact the TLD label restriction never
> was there and should not be, then once this document is published you
> all can go out and write the draft, "TLD label character restrictions
> considered harmful", and pursue the publication of that as an RFC.  In
> the meantime, we have at least a technical document that makes clear
> that certain things are permitted.

+1

Regards,
-drc