MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3CE0A36F-58C7-4FAF-B804-346E167D6AEC@icann.org>
References: <3CE0A36F-58C7-4FAF-B804-346E167D6AEC@icann.org>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:41:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1ngsNNB6tJhcy2uCUApF-gh_AmifJO=cY16rtVmzgeb8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114074667686a8053d33a793
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/eObZTfdyFc5aVRPcwXkzcioVTH0>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry
Precedence: list

--001a114074667686a8053d33a793
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

This is really well put, Ed.   Thanks.   I'm a little tempted to plagiarize
you.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
wrote:

> I have gotten the sense of a belief that IANA (the IANA functions office)
> runs many registries for the IETF and they are not controversial and
> because of this, the issues surrounding the Special Use Domain Name
> registry are all fluff and no substance.  But the Special Use Domain Name
> registry is a special case, it is not a run-of-the-mill IANA registry.
>
> The registry is special because the items registered are not bound in a
> narrow scope.  The registered items (names) are used in many different
> contexts.  This is opposed to protocol parameter registries, where the
> registered item has a very narrow meaning.  E.g., "MX" as a mnemonic for
> the numeric value of 15 in the registry for resource records is not treated
> as a conflict with "MX" as the two-letter code for Mexico (not an IANA
> registry).  (Ignoring well known use problems with dig.)
>
> There are registries run by IANA like the Special Use Domain Name registry
> when it comes to scope.  To name two the IPv4 and IPv6 address registries.
> Addresses and other number parameters (AS numbers) are used in narrow
> contexts but are also seen in other places.  The point is that these
> registries are supported by well-developed policies for entering items into
> registries, the Regional Internet Registries have agreed to pan-RIR, global
> policies on these registries.
>
> This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the
> discussions on the topic.  Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a
> reflection that the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic.
> That is not an insult because there's a significant difference between the
> function of registration (of anything) and the function of the DNS system.
> Those two topics are often confused and I think that is happening again.
>
> If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period
> and the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it
> is understandable.  Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the
> roster of other work represents "time better spent" means that this work
> could be pushed off the table.  However, the discussion ought to be resumed
> somewhere else.  I think that the Special Use Domain Name registry is
> needed but as it is currently defined, inadequate.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>

--001a114074667686a8053d33a793
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">This is really well put, Ed. =C2=A0 Thanks. =C2=A0 I&#39;m=
 a little tempted to plagiarize you.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Edward Lewis <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:edward.lewis@icann.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">edward.lewis@icann.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">I have gotten the sense of a belief that IANA (the IANA functions of=
fice) runs many registries for the IETF and they are not controversial and =
because of this, the issues surrounding the Special Use Domain Name registr=
y are all fluff and no substance.=C2=A0 But the Special Use Domain Name reg=
istry is a special case, it is not a run-of-the-mill IANA registry.<br>
<br>
The registry is special because the items registered are not bound in a nar=
row scope.=C2=A0 The registered items (names) are used in many different co=
ntexts.=C2=A0 This is opposed to protocol parameter registries, where the r=
egistered item has a very narrow meaning.=C2=A0 E.g., &quot;MX&quot; as a m=
nemonic for the numeric value of 15 in the registry for resource records is=
 not treated as a conflict with &quot;MX&quot; as the two-letter code for M=
exico (not an IANA registry).=C2=A0 (Ignoring well known use problems with =
dig.)<br>
<br>
There are registries run by IANA like the Special Use Domain Name registry =
when it comes to scope.=C2=A0 To name two the IPv4 and IPv6 address registr=
ies.=C2=A0 Addresses and other number parameters (AS numbers) are used in n=
arrow contexts but are also seen in other places.=C2=A0 The point is that t=
hese registries are supported by well-developed policies for entering items=
 into registries, the Regional Internet Registries have agreed to pan-RIR, =
global policies on these registries.<br>
<br>
This writing is in reaction to a rather limited set of participants in the =
discussions on the topic.=C2=A0 Maybe that is appropriate, maybe that is a =
reflection that the DNSOP WG is not the best place to cover this topic.=C2=
=A0 That is not an insult because there&#39;s a significant difference betw=
een the function of registration (of anything) and the function of the DNS =
system.=C2=A0 Those two topics are often confused and I think that is happe=
ning again.<br>
<br>
If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period an=
d the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it is =
understandable.=C2=A0 Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, th=
e roster of other work represents &quot;time better spent&quot; means that =
this work could be pushed off the table.=C2=A0 However, the discussion ough=
t to be resumed somewhere else.=C2=A0 I think that the Special Use Domain N=
ame registry is needed but as it is currently defined, inadequate.<br>
<br>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
DNSOP mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org">DNSOP@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop" rel=3D"noreferrer" =
target=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/dnsop</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a114074667686a8053d33a793--