Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem

The authors of this draft was alerted when -00 was initially submitted 
that this approval needed to pass through DNSOP.

On 11/5/15 10:19 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
> Which demands pretty direct pushback on the AD and WG chairs, because 
> otherwise, we're just building a huge queue of pent-up demand for 
> names. Names we might decide we don't think should happen, or happen a 
> different way.
>
> If we allow WG adoption in another WG of something which heads into an 
> active disputed area in here, I think we're making a huge rod for our 
> own backs. I understand why people want things like .HOME, but I am 
> very unkeen to have parallel discussions of the social utility of 
> these names, while we are actively discussing process and external 
> body roles.
>
> So.. cross-WG and AD discussion time? please?
>
> -G
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com 
> <mailto:tjw.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use
>     Domain Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has
>     a direction.
>
>     On 11/5/15 10:11 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
>>     So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a
>>     possible emerging homenet desire for .home?
>>
>>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
>>
>>     because I believe this isn't just the tail of odd requests from
>>     the tor people for various hash based names.. its another WG
>>     inside the IETF process thinking "oh.. .onion worked, so lets go
>>     do one"
>>
>>     -G
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     DNSOP mailing list
>>     DNSOP@ietf.org <mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     DNSOP mailing list
>     DNSOP@ietf.org <mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>