Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

Jim, I asked you this privately, but your mail server bounced my mail for
no obvious reason with:

550 5.7.1 <mail-lf0-f41.google.com[209.85.215.41]>: Client host rejected:
No thanks.

So, what do you think "the root cause" is?

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
> > On 27 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless
> detail and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement.
> >
> > .... we have two of them --
>
> Indeed Warren. That’s one too many.
>
> They both come up short as problem statements IMO. I’m struggling to find
> words to succinctly describe what problem the WG is expected to solve -
> sorry about that -- since it appears to be a layer 9+ matter. Both drafts
> seem to be concerned with treating (some of?) the symptoms rather than the
> root cause(s). Excuse the pun.
>
> > ALT doesn't solve any of the major issues, but it *does* create a safe
> > place for those people who want to experiment and build alternate
> > resolution systems -- and takes some of the pressure off while we
> > discuss solutions....
>
> True. But that seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Where’s the
> demand from experimenters and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their
> alterate resolution systems? That’s a rhetorical question BTW. Answering it
> may well distract the WG from its quest for that one true problem statement
> to rule them all. So please don’t do that. :-)
>
> FWIW I’m sceptical about creating .alt as a playpen for experiments since
> it might undermine efforts to answer the question ICANN asked us, whatever
> that question might be, or be the start of a slippery slope. Maybe a TLD is
> needed for experiments. Maybe not. However that’s something to discuss once
> we’ve figured out what has to be done about special* TLDs in general. *For
> some as-yet-unclear definition of special.
>
> I think the WG should step back from both drafts, take a deep breath and
> agree a problem statement. Once that’s done, we’ll be in a better place to
> decide what to do with both drafts.
>
> Easier said than done I know...
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>