Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

You are complaining about the following text:

   In [RFC2826] the IAB noted that

      "To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence
      of a globally unique public name space.  The DNS name space is a
      hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique
      root."

Abley, et al.           Expires September 9, 2016               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Top-Level/Special-Use Domain Names         March 2016

      "Maintaining a globally-unique public namespace that supports
      different name resolution protocols is hence an architectural
      requirement, and some facility for reservation of top-level
      domains in the DNS is necessary."

   If [...]

>From the context it would appear the second paragraph surrounded by
double-quotes is actually part of the main text of the document and not
a quote.

Note the indentation in the markup:

https://github.com/ableyjoe/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/blob/bd566c665630c96b415ed28caec48f27267d57c9/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem.xml#L342-L354

Probably there is a missing <t> at the beginning of line 351.

Adrien de Croy wrote:
> sorry, that second reference should have also been RFC 2826
> 
> neither the word "Maintaining" nor "architectural" are present in 2826
> according to the search function in Chrome.
> 
> Adrien
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
> To: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>; "dnsop@ietf.org"
> <dnsop@ietf.org>
> Sent: 1/04/2016 9:25:07 a.m.
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01
> 
> >
> >
> >------ Original Message ------
> >From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
> >To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
> >Cc: "adrien@qbik.com" <adrien@qbik.com>
> >Sent: 1/04/2016 12:31:53 a.m.
> >Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01
> >
> >>On 30 Mar 2016, at 18:49, John Levine wrote:
> >>
> >>>Isn't it a little late to be refighting this argument?
> >>
> >>+1.
> >
> >I guess now we have some hindsight maybe we could learn from the
> >experiences with .onion and maybe look differently at a proposal for .alt.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Folks: this thread is about a specific document, not every other thing
> >>we have discussed before now. If you want to rediscuss (as I sometimes
> >>do), please at least reference in the document where your argument fits.
> >>That way, the document authors can maybe amend the document if there is
> >>consensus to do so.
> >Well I would start with what is presented as a quote from RFC 2826 which
> >isn't actually in RFC 2686 and which seems to be the basis for a claim of
> >even doing a special use names registry at all.
> >
> >In Section 4. Architectural considerations
> >
> >"Maintaining a globally-unique public namespace that supports different
> >name resolution protocols is hence an architectural requirement..."
> >
> >Adrien
> >
> >
> >>
> >>--Paul Hoffman
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>DNSOP mailing list
> >>DNSOP@ietf.org
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >DNSOP mailing list
> >DNSOP@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Robert Edmonds