Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement,
this discussion is why.  You are both taking past reach other because you
are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.

On Sep 29, 2016 6:03 PM, "George Michaelson" <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:

Thats precisely why its NOT a false analogy: the design model in the
IETF is that the value doesn't matter, but in the DNS, the design
model is "follow the money" and 6761 crosses the bars: it enables
people in tech-space, to reserve labels in meat-space.

We got it wrong. We should have encouraged s/w designers not to brand
their DNS breakout string early, but provided a mechanism to give them
a token under .arpa, or something else, pending a decision, and we
should have made it clear the specific string wasn't their chosing. If
they see inherent value in the string, then they immediately walked to
being an applicant in ICANN gTLD space: the technical merit argument
doesn't relate.

Sorry John, but to me its not a "false analogy" its exactly what I
meant. 6761 is a process fail.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:41 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> The latter, is the decision-role of ICANN. Under advisement, yes.
>> respecting IETF process yes. But the mechanism as written in 6761
>> vests IETF with a process outcome which specifies where the label is,
>> and what value. Thats just wrong.
>
>
> For some version of wrong, I suppose, but it seems a false analogy to
> me.  Nobody cares if their new RRTYPE is number 666 or numbr 273, or
> what IP address range they get, but a lot of people care if their TLD
> or pseudo-TLD is .lksjdk or .money.
>
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop