Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is
documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed.   One of the
reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the
original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions,
without there being a clear agreement on what problems exist, and what
problems we as a working group can get consensus to try to address.

This discussion is again going down the solution space path.   I understand
the motivation, and I don't disagree with it, but I really would like to
get a problem statement before we start talking about solutions.

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Alain Durand <alain.durand@icann.org>
wrote:

> What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure
> toxicity. We could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and
> maybe then define a threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that
> particular string.
>
> I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this list
> in 6761 is problematic, for the reason mentioned in section 3.f of
> darft-adpkja:
>
> "f.  [RFC6761] does not have provision for subsequent management of
>        the registry, such as updates, deletions of entries, etc…”
>
>
> Alain.
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:10 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
> This is the toxic waste bit.  The names don't make sense in the 6761
> special use registry, since they're not being used in any way that is
> or can be standardized, but they also aren't suitable for delegation
> due to widespread de facto use.  I also expect that if we redid last
> year's debate in anything like the same way, we'd have the same
> result, one or two highly motivated people who work for TLD applicants
> would sabotage it.
>
> As I hardly need tell you, it is utterly unclear whether it makes more
> sense to have the IETF reserve them or, to switch hats and encourage
> ICANN to put them on a list of names that aren't in use but can't be
> delegated as SAC045 suggests.
>
> One reason that the latter makes slightly more sense is that it's
> likely that some of those names will eventually become less polluted,
> so the list needs to be reconsidered every once in a while (years.)
> For example, I gather that it's been a decade since Belkin stopped
> making routers that leak .belkin traffic, and at some point most of
> them will be gone.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>