[DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Special Use Names Summary


First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion.  There were a few 
things uncovered which are not in either draft.  It does appear that the 
draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting 
point. Both drafts say useful things, and the chairs would very much 
like to see people keep working to get all relevant points into one. The 
scoping question of choosing between “What do we think of RFC 6761” and 
“What underlying problem do we actually have” came up quite clearly, and 
seemed like a key factor to us.

The chairs felt that a limited scope draft was possible, and what we 
were looking for. Even with a limited scope draft, we've found we can't 
ignore questions about the underlying assumptions behind 6761, both 
because they're not fully articulated and because they may not include 
several cases we care about. For example:
     - what problem do we have because we value uniqueness in domain 
names as an architectural principle, regardless of specific strings chosen?
     - what problem exists for the IETF even if we say we don’t care 
what other groups (ICANN, the Tor Project, open source creators) do?
     - what happens if we abandon this work, or deprecate RFC 6761?

There are also several items which need clarifying, which the WG 
discussion may also include and the chairs will work on with the IESG 
and the IAB as appropriate.

     - Describing, as much as possible, how this work interlocks with 
ICANN’s policy authority over the DNS root zone
     - Providing guidelines for IETF WGs
     - Providing guidelines for domain name use outside of the IETF
disposing of some distractions that keep coming up
     - Clarifying, to the degree possible, who has process authority 
over what (IESG, IAB, this WG, other IETF WGS)

Thanks

Tim/Suzanne