Re: [DNSOP] getting back to our work on special use names

[tjw ietf <[e-mail]>]

I think updating alt-tld draft to point to the specific problems in
sutld-ps to be useful.

I am holding out hope that alt-tld will be unstuck and kicked down the road.
I also am holding out for a pony.

tim

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:47 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> >
> > It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs
> see it, here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March).
> We'll be having a DNSOP WG interim meeting shortly, see below.
> >
> > 1. We need to advance the problem statement document,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/. Please
> review and comment on the list. We'd like to have a WGLC on it before IETF
> 98.
> >
> >
> > Some additional background.
> > The ICANN SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee) recently (Dec
> 22nd) published SAC090 - https://www.icann.org/en/
> system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full disclosure: I'm an author).
> >
> > It is short, and easily readable -- I'd strongly encourage you to read
> it (but I'll provide some teasers to tempt you!).
> > It notes that "a central authority to control the way in which domain
> names are used in all contexts-is both infeasible and undesirable given the
> robustly non-centralized way in which the Internet ecosystem evolves", and
> that a coordinated management of the namespace might be best.
> > It also finds that uncoordinated use leads to ambiguity (and
> instability), and that currently ICANN and the IETF (and others) all
> allocate from a single namespace.
> > It recommends that ICANN
> > 1: create criteria for determining what labels can be TLDs.
> > 2: figure out how to coordinate with a: the IETF declaring names as
> "special" (6761) and b: other "private use" names.
>
> I read SAC090 and also recommend that others read it.  The second
> recommendation affects the IETF and, specifically, would address some of
> the problems listed in draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps.
>
> I've reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and added some text citing SAC090;
> we'll publish that new revision soon.
>
> >
> > This is a very quick summary, please go actually read it - there are
> only ~6 pages of actual content, but it recommends coordination with the
> IETF. So, please, let's try and get this moving -- I'd hate it if the IETF
> ends up looking more dysfunctional than ICANN :-P
> >
> >
> > Also, ~3 days ago someone posted about .onion (and Special Use Names) on
> hackernews -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370488 . This topic
> is still of interest to a bunch of people...
> >
> >
> > 2. Now that we have a working problem statement, we'd like to see
> proposals on possible changes to IETF procedures to resolve the issues
> we've raised. We're looking for on-list discussion, preferably with posted
> I-Ds.
> >
> > These proposals do not have to be limited to work for the DNSOP WG; they
> may also include work we think belongs in other WGs, or requests to the
> IESG or the IAB (such as liaison statements to groups outside of the IETF).
> >
> > We have had a proposal, for the ALT TLD, before us for some time now,
> which we put aside while we worked on the problem statement. As part of
> assessing solutions, we need to review https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ and determine what the WG wants to do with
> it. Comments to the list, please.
> >
> > Yes please. The document is still parked, but please send me comments
> *on the draft* and I'll try keep track of them to incorporate. I know that
> there is much background which can be culled, I'll post a new version to
> GitHub with that done soon.
>
> Now that we have draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, would there be any benefit to
> revising draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld to point to the specific problems .alt
> would address?
>
> <pedantic>I was going to suggest 1,$g/alternate/alternative/, but
> consulting Merriam-Webster informs me that "For all intents and purposes,
> alternate and alternative are synonymous.  Oh, well.</pedantic>
>
> - Ralph
>
> >
> > W
> >
> >
> > 3. We're scheduling an interim WG meeting during the week of January 30
> for further work on this topic. We'll provide some possible days/times to
> the list for feedback shortly, and we can't promise to accomodate
> everyone's schedule constraints but will do our best.
> >
> >
> > best,
> > Suzanne & Tim
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>