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

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 11/24/2010 06:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:15:23PM +1100, James Mitchell wrote:
>> If deployed software does not work with a TLD, it is the TLD owner who loses.
>
> I'm sorry, but that claim is arrant nonsense.  We _all_ lose.

Which is why I mentioned specifically that I believe ICANN does have a 
policy role here, and that (knowing what we know now about what happened 
in 2001) there should be extra care taken in negotiating the registry 
agreements to make sure that the registrants are knowingly taking the 
risk along with the registry. But those are policy issues.

> The
> IETF is supposed to be about interoperability, and if stuff breaks
> because we have decided, "We don't care lalalalalala I can't hear
> you there isn't a problem," then we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

I am rather specifically NOT claiming that there is no problem, and your 
attempt here to paint me (and others who agree with this view) as 
childish/foolish is a borderline ad hominem attack.

I will once again point out that if your criteria is "We can never 
deploy anything new in DNS because something in the installed base will 
break" then the issue with this draft is moot. We simply will not do 
IDNs at all, and therefore there is no need for the draft to clarify 
anything. Oh and btw, are you going to notify Jari and Ralph that we're 
closing down dnsext, or would you like me to do it?

I'm quite serious here. You are setting the bar impossibly high and 
using arguments that don't make sense if you follow them to their 
logical conclusion.

> I think Joe's pragmatic approach is the right one: document right now
> that whatever the restrictions might historically have been, we are
> quite explicitly going to permit at the very least one class of
> labels.
>
> If people feel strongly that in fact the TLD label restriction never
> was there and should not be, then once this document is published you
> all can go out and write the draft, "TLD label character restrictions
> considered harmful", and pursue the publication of that as an RFC.  In
> the meantime, we have at least a technical document that makes clear
> that certain things are permitted.

I've already lodged this objection more than once, but since you have 
repeated your side again, I'll do the same. We do not have a protocol 
restriction now, and your attempt to assert one in a "clarify" draft is 
at best, bogus.

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/