Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps
Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Wed, 27 May 2015 19:53 UTC
Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6DD1A904E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 12:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YO-JcwLWBfxo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 12:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991731A1EEC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 12:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70DF9242149F; Wed, 27 May 2015 19:53:42 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3483DBB-7F69-4CEB-ACD4-545B3CF7D4E0@INTERISLE.NET>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 20:53:41 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E94E3B21-A015-4367-B8AF-7C21F322DE08@rfc1035.com>
References: <0CB7A66E-B6C9-4FE7-8452-172A5CF48895@gmail.com> <F28C4DE3-12CF-462D-BB55-5A02CA364173@interisle.net> <47EE9472-3E0C-4FA8-A058-8A288675C936@uniregistry.com> <E3483DBB-7F69-4CEB-ACD4-545B3CF7D4E0@INTERISLE.NET>
To: Lyman Chapin <lyman@INTERISLE.NET>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/euI9naa_lPdPjX4ORpEO-dPcICw>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Francisco Obispo <fobispo@uniregistry.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 27 May 2015 19:53:50 -0000
On 27 May 2015, at 20:22, Lyman Chapin <lyman@INTERISLE.NET> wrote: >> On May 26, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >> I’m against withdrawing/reserving these names. > > Hi Francisco - > > We don't know each other, but if I may assume that you work for Uniregistry (apologies if I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion from the domain name in your email address), you have a clear conflict of interest as a gTLD applicant for "home". Your viewpoint and comments are still valuable, and I mean no disrespect when I suggest that you have a conflict; but I hope that when Tim and Suzanne refer to "consensus of the WG" they mean "except for WG participants who have a clear COI". Indeed. However IMO the question of what hats Francisco (or anyone else) might or might not be wearing does not matter to the consensus view/determination of the WG and its co-chairs. The usual working definition of consensus is lack of sustained reasonable objection. Francisco has objected but AFAICT has not found support in the WG for his position. The WG should note his objection and proceed. FWIW RFC7282 says "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated". I think in this case that rough consensus has been reached. All the issues seem to have been addressed even if the above objection has not been accommodated. > Having heard no (disinterested) objection to putting corp, home, and mail in the special-use name registry defined by RFC 6761, perhaps the WG chairs would proceed with a call for adoption of draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02 +1. IMO there's a consensus for that view in the WG. So let's get this out the door and move on. Lyman's instinct to favour operational stability is prudent. I support that PoV.
- [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 i… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Tom Ritter
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Tom Ritter
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Lyman Chapin
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Rubens Kuhl
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Rubens Kuhl
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Paul Wouters
- [DNSOP] dotless names (was Re: followup and propo… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] dotless names (was Re: followup and p… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] dotless names (was Re: followup and p… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Lyman Chapin
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] dotless names (was Re: followup and p… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Lyman Chapin
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Rubens Kuhl
- Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 67… Andrew Sullivan