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

James Mitchell <james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au> Wed, 24 November 2010 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 230E23A6912 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:14:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Zi6lIYx2yXK for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx10-1.ausregistry.net.au (mx10-1.ausregistry.net.au [202.65.12.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06703A69E7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local (off-win2003-01.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au [10.30.1.3]) by mx10-1.ausregistry.net.au (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAO2FRlu013288; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:15:27 +1100
Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:15:24 +1100
From: James Mitchell <james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:15:23 +1100
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04
Thread-Index: AcuLd+HV06NLBS8ERz2vkjPnKxftjwAA9zyg
Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB43E0037FD1@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
References: <B35360B6-0DB9-49CB-B68E-09DFFFB1ACA0@icann.org> <31FCAB67-9E3E-4E2B-957F-1A1F628AA8FB@hopcount.ca> <20101117091928.GA30093@nic.fr> <4CE9E942.20906@dougbarton.us> <0E561274-43FE-4657-951E-74C8FF0FD307@hopcount.ca> <4CEC43DC.1060709@dougbarton.us> <E7796748-6880-4928-B96D-0024E27E98D5@hopcount.ca> <4CEC69C5.3040209@dougbarton.us> <7B9EF625-1E25-42BE-9546-61C5B7EFC6DA@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <7B9EF625-1E25-42BE-9546-61C5B7EFC6DA@hopcount.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 24 Nov 2010 02:14:51 -0000

If deployed software does not work with a TLD, it is the TLD owner who loses. ICANN makes it clear to applicants that the TLD may not function on the Internet (gTLD Applicant Guidebook, Proposed Final Version, Section 1.2.4, Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues with New gTLDs) and states that successful applicants 'may find themselves expending considerable efforts working with providers to achieve acceptance of their new top-level domain.'

The people responsible for the deployed software are under no obligation to make any changes.

James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe
> Abley
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 November 2010 12:35 PM
> To: Doug Barton
> Cc: IETF DNSOP WG
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04
> 
> 
> On 2010-11-23, at 20:26, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
> > On 11/23/2010 16:19, Joe Abley wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. there is no restriction to be inferred from RFC 1123 that TLD
> >> labels be alphabetic;
> >
> > Unqualified "yes" to this.
> 
> I presume you appreciate that not everybody shares your opinion on this.
> 
> >> 2. it is better for deployed software to break than for the IETF to
> >> involve itself in anything resembling policy.
> >
> > A qualified "yes" here. I'm saying that in _this_ situation, the IETF does
> not and should not have a policy role, and should limit its commentary to the
> technical. There is (rather obviously at this point) no _technical_ reason
> that TLD labels should be all-alphabetic.
> 
> Well, beyond the expectation in deployed software this should be the case.
> That's an operational consideration that I think is reasonable to describe as
> technical.
> 
> > Furthermore I am saying that the benefits of keeping the TLD namespace open
> to all technically possible values outweigh the costs. [...]
> 
> I thought you weren't interested in discussing policy in the IETF? :-)
> 
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop