Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jacob,
At 08:52 03-12-2013, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>In terms of informational RFCs, I think it is clearly a good idea to
>document what is realistically in use.

Yes.

>I assume that .local did not always have history? However, I think that
>there are clearly many p2p systems with a history as well - .onion is
>nearly ten years old now.

I was referring to the history within the IETF.  The (draft) proposal 
took over ten years to be published.

>What would make it a good explanation?

I'll read the draft again and comment.  Seriously, it is difficult to 
tell what would be a good explanation.  I would describe it as "the 
person has thought about the issues and can provide good answers for them".

>What is a better alternatively? Shall we ignore the IETF and ICANN
>entirely? Shall we give up on IETF and shell out the cash to ICANN?

It is premature to give up on getting the draft published by the 
IETF.  I would answer "no" to the second question. :-)

>The P2P systems push the boundary - the informational RFC merely
>documents it and ensures that the IETF is the best place to find that
>information.

I'd say put the process discussion on hold, focus on the technical 
content; then discuss the draft within the IETF.

Regards,
-sm