Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephane,
At 09:53 01-12-2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>RFC 6761 does not say anything about that. Do note a TLD has already
>been registered under RFC 6761, .local. Some people may say that, when
>you are a big US company, just hijack the TLD, deploy the software,
>and the IETF will ruberstamp you. But if you are just ordinary people
>working to improve the Internet, you have no chance of even being
>seriously considered.

Rubberstamping is only possible when people remain quiet.  The easier 
path is to fix the proposal so that it looks like a technical specification.

>Precedent? And .local, what was it?

I asked about .local (see 
http://www6.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65346.html 
).  I did not receive any reponse.

Please note that .local has some history.  I would look at it as "do 
not use that string as it is unlikely that uniqueness can be ensured".

>RFC 6761 "Hence, the act of defining such a special name creates a
>higher-level protocol rule, above ICANN's management of allocable
>names on the public Internet." So basically, RFC 6761 says that IETF
>has the right to create TLD at will.

The IETF should have a good explanation for doing that.  In my 
opinion the draft under discussion does not provide a good explanation.

At 07:40 02-12-2013, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>TLD live on the boundary of IETF and ICANN, we do not want to push 
>that boundary but allowing RFC to allocate what ICANN charges big bucks for.

I agree with Olafur that it is not a good idea to push the boundary.

Regards,
-sm