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

[Jacob Appelbaum <[e-mail]>]

SM:
> Hi Stephane,
> At 09:53 01-12-2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> RFC 6761 does not say anything about that. Do note a TLD has already
>> been registered under RFC 6761, .local. Some people may say that, when
>> you are a big US company, just hijack the TLD, deploy the software,
>> and the IETF will ruberstamp you. But if you are just ordinary people
>> working to improve the Internet, you have no chance of even being
>> seriously considered.
> 
> Rubberstamping is only possible when people remain quiet.  The easier
> path is to fix the proposal so that it looks like a technical
> specification.
> 

In terms of informational RFCs, I think it is clearly a good idea to
document what is realistically in use.

>> Precedent? And .local, what was it?
> 
> I asked about .local (see
> http://www6.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65346.html ).  I
> did not receive any reponse.
> 
> Please note that .local has some history.  I would look at it as "do not
> use that string as it is unlikely that uniqueness can be ensured".
> 

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.

>> RFC 6761 "Hence, the act of defining such a special name creates a
>> higher-level protocol rule, above ICANN's management of allocable
>> names on the public Internet." So basically, RFC 6761 says that IETF
>> has the right to create TLD at will.
> 
> The IETF should have a good explanation for doing that.  In my opinion
> the draft under discussion does not provide a good explanation.
> 

What would make it a good explanation?

> At 07:40 02-12-2013, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> TLD live on the boundary of IETF and ICANN, we do not want to push
>> that boundary but allowing RFC to allocate what ICANN charges big
>> bucks for.
> 
> I agree with Olafur that it is not a good idea to push the boundary.
> 

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?

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.

All the best,
Jacob