To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
References: <CAKr6gn0oiK9WKfN95b=muuxG0+0oKv8KDaq=xpabRf-zgCO+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <563AADE3.2070704@gmail.com>
 <CAKr6gn3FwtSfODBzMCN+iktbrghFoFYqJi3gCkWTx=Ttpj=GTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <563AB184.4020403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:31:48 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:44.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/44.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn3FwtSfODBzMCN+iktbrghFoFYqJi3gCkWTx=Ttpj=GTw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------070205050402070007070606"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/WSMrAYf5qMfjCPaZJTFLzgKSbjE>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070205050402070007070606
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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
>
>


--------------070205050402070007070606
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <br>
    <tt>The authors of this draft was alerted when -00 was initially
      submitted that this approval needed to pass through DNSOP. <br>
      <br>
       </tt><br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/5/15 10:19 AM, George Michaelson
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAKr6gn3FwtSfODBzMCN+iktbrghFoFYqJi3gCkWTx=Ttpj=GTw@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">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. 
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>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.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>So.. cross-WG and AD discussion time? please?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>-G</div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Tim
          WIcinski <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:tjw.ietf@gmail.com" target="_blank">tjw.ietf@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <tt>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. </tt><br>
              <div>
                <div class="h5"> <br>
                  <div>On 11/5/15 10:11 AM, George Michaelson wrote:<br>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
              <blockquote type="cite">
                <div>
                  <div class="h5">
                    <div dir="ltr">So can somebody explain to me what we
                      are meant to do with a possible emerging homenet
                      desire for .home?
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/"
                          target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/</a><br>
                      </div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>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"</div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>-G</div>
                    </div>
                    <br>
                    <fieldset></fieldset>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <pre>_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org" target="_blank">DNSOP@ietf.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop</a>
</pre>
              </blockquote>
              <br>
            </div>
            <br>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            DNSOP mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org">DNSOP@ietf.org</a><br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop</a><br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------070205050402070007070606--