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

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 11/26/2010 14:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:15:38PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Ah, now I get it. You're arguing that the protocol restriction did exist
>> in the past, and now we're relaxing it, but only slightly.
>
> No, I'm arguing, just as the document does, that some people may have
> understood this to be a protocol restriction because the document was
> not crystal clear about what was policy and what was not.  My personal
> view is that it _was_ policy, that it was called out as such, and that
> if things break then that's a pity.  But as an IETF geek, I'm
> concerned about interoperability.  And so since the protocol/policy
> line was not always drawn as brightly in the past as it maybe could
> have been, let's explicitly say that certain things are just hunky
> dory.

Ok, so you're using different words but the end result is the same, and 
I still object.

> In my opinion, the alternative to this is to say nothing.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for this course of action. But given 
what I know about the policy side of it, and the fact that Joe/ICANN is 
the author of the current draft, I seriously doubt that we can beg off 
here.


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/