Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Wed, 24 November 2010 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C3428C183 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:25:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9BtNvIupz8Jp for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx23.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11AF28C157 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 29992 invoked by uid 399); 24 Nov 2010 01:26:30 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO doug-optiplex.ka9q.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 24 Nov 2010 01:26:30 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <4CEC69C5.3040209@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:26:29 -0800
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101028 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
References: <B35360B6-0DB9-49CB-B68E-09DFFFB1ACA0@icann.org> <31FCAB67-9E3E-4E2B-957F-1A1F628AA8FB@hopcount.ca> <20101117091928.GA30093@nic.fr> <4CE9E942.20906@dougbarton.us> <0E561274-43FE-4657-951E-74C8FF0FD307@hopcount.ca> <4CEC43DC.1060709@dougbarton.us> <E7796748-6880-4928-B96D-0024E27E98D5@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <E7796748-6880-4928-B96D-0024E27E98D5@hopcount.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:25:34 -0000

On 11/23/2010 16:19, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-11-23, at 17:44, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> I don't think you can mix those 2 terms in the same sentence. :)
>
> Just so I understand the context for your comments, you're saying
> that in your opinion:
>
> 1. there is no restriction to be inferred from RFC 1123 that TLD
> labels be alphabetic;

Unqualified "yes" to this.

> 2. it is better for deployed software to break than for the IETF to
> involve itself in anything resembling policy.

A qualified "yes" here. I'm saying that in _this_ situation, the IETF 
does not and should not have a policy role, and should limit its 
commentary to the technical. There is (rather obviously at this point) 
no _technical_ reason that TLD labels should be all-alphabetic. 
Therefore the IETF should not say that there is.

Furthermore I am saying that the benefits of keeping the TLD namespace 
open to all technically possible values outweigh the costs. Look at what 
happened in 2001. Many people said that the sky would fall when we 
introduced TLD labels of more than 3 characters. The relevant players 
all said "We know that there are potholes on this road, but we want to 
travel it anyway." The actual experience turned out to be rougher than 
some expected it to be, but we got through it. The same thing is going 
to happen here, without question. But to once again summarize my points:
1. I think the benefits are worth it
2. I DO NOT think it's the IETF's role to tell people that they can't do it
3. I DO NOT even think it's ICANN's role to tell them that they should 
not or cannot do it.

That said, I DO think that there IS a policy role for ICANN here, and 
while I don't want to rathole that in this forum I think that gTLD 
applicants for such strings should be fully advised of the problems, and 
I think that there should be some extra-ordinary measures put in place 
to safeguard registrants in any theoretical new TLD that falls into this 
category. But once again, those are ICANNs of worms. :)


hth,

Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/