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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 29 September 2016 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0588E12B19A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 8JveD2_W1OyD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A1312B56F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g62so81391457lfe.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jL5yQ6RDUOasNvBTzQIBYybnfP0GdWj1LosXIjXJhKI=; b=hR4oL+jbTQ4hj75sFz60hb69xdtJER8IZorDG7nQcKCCWUqG7X0S9ac67Hz1fItArC FkZCA2yfJMV8JqWiOKPNua+2c7TmsztTWHVK/yBcda0TfYfdnAmz0A79nK0hnveoEO0w COj9R3na2a5YwNfl/pwfnPD14Kd2FCn8IjyVtubgjr+JStcaeHS7UULGbjfbrCzBPmcw +EMfwitrsVWu+vrepz/rezIHxzCWc+ZLafZOuLRqucUX78AuOXGwCDVQZB9Cu5qbFuie 9e8f0DFUJL+5WgClnJD92WDK5LuFeah6WZ5GqN4yy7RQbPUxBWdcpaXUgsWl5CREOlR2 aZTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jL5yQ6RDUOasNvBTzQIBYybnfP0GdWj1LosXIjXJhKI=; b=er5tpR3JnII9UwXlsDtt4+JhYrUR27zz2Iz64s1MS3osRhbW7N4kIx8oDKR17CwzsZ TxVEvfNbIbJwY8tdysc9PrbzewVW4OlG8itGEEoWCML+hG2RNR9Ra3rQgbYYUP4zrvtR dFwKrahQDcPV+d427PYJ3BR5sKEBPFyvvA0YjNDgiO1Sg6BXiaARJb+D0VyAWeDFNG9v sJweEmBlwVhDEUXKwODU7fxusLSkXuxfDnBg9UtellkyhmBHpKtHuo62ZDDFFHrHYU4T o8WsFiXFfQ9u1K1NF9Gatzcie39ZuJViP0PTwhAp6WgBZ6SE852It3tqfotn2Qe1szvY +6bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnntdFShY34zLMWLLLupkE2k1h76dX1qEfisZVWKyv8ezckI1CVBMD2Gp5REt3DIpDmxAWAJeLFoMTH2A==
X-Received: by 10.46.5.140 with SMTP id 134mr844006ljf.13.1475158905772; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BFAA2528-7310-4D10-99ED-48F8F8DA0B43@nohats.ca>
References: <CAHw9_i+UVH78URWzk+4x=j9BZiKfX3C+UeFU9vz1OfZ3tPeN1Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160920133357.hbvtkrg5uwgzu4wh@nic.fr> <CAHw9_iJ-9mMsu30fyEtJd7y7BPDh3BFjiXOK8dE_UynuF65sPg@mail.gmail.com> <20160925110204.GA12227@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1609251232400.22547@bofh.nohats.ca> <20160928212406.GC4192@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <BFAA2528-7310-4D10-99ED-48F8F8DA0B43@nohats.ca>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:21:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nhUCuMzynKbzQO23Mcu92xuFeA5SAY6KHDiOcw=rW=7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pMfZhWvM39U2b8dzoJxKAoCBvTg>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:21:53 -0000

To be clear, while the IESG may have said something about their
willingness to entertain further uses of the 6761 process, the 6761
process represents current IETF consensus.   If we don't update it, it
stands.   The IESG does not have the authority to overrule IETF
consensus. There's some sense that 6761 is inadequate, and that
perhaps were the IETF to be asked for a consensus now, 6761 would not
be what that consensus would be.   That's why we decided to write a
problem statement: to try to figure out if indeed there is a consensus
can be reached, and if so, what it is.

(Bear in mind that consensus does not mean "everyone agrees.")

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 17:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:35:00PM -0400,
>> Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote
>> a message of 16 lines which said:
>>
>>>> it works (two TLD were registered through it).
>>>
>>> Are you referring to the two registrations as successes or failures,
>>
>> In the absence of criteria for defining success or failure of a
>> special-use TLD, it will be hard to tell. But the _process_ was a
>> success: applications were written, examined, and the registry was
>> updated.
>
> If the process was a success, we would have had the other candidates go through as well. The process was a failure because it has been rather arbitrary - which is why it needed to close down as it did.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop