Re: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 10/7/16 1:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
> Special Use Names Summary
> 
> 
> First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion.  There were a few
> things uncovered which are not in either draft.  It does appear that the
> draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting
> point. Both drafts say useful things, and the chairs would very much
> like to see people keep working to get all relevant points into one. The
> scoping question of choosing between “What do we think of RFC 6761” and
> “What underlying problem do we actually have” came up quite clearly, and
> seemed like a key factor to us.

Thank you  for doing this, sieving the discussion  on the adoption was
no small effort.

> The chairs felt that a limited scope draft was possible, and what we
> were looking for. Even with a limited scope draft, we've found we can't
> ignore questions about the underlying assumptions behind 6761, both
> because they're not fully articulated and because they may not include
> several cases we care about. For example:
>     - what problem do we have because we value uniqueness in domain
> names as an architectural principle, regardless of specific strings chosen?
>     - what problem exists for the IETF even if we say we don’t care what
> other groups (ICANN, the Tor Project, open source creators) do?
>     - what happens if we abandon this work, or deprecate RFC 6761?
> 
> There are also several items which need clarifying, which the WG
> discussion may also include and the chairs will work on with the IESG
> and the IAB as appropriate.
> 
>     - Describing, as much as possible, how this work interlocks with
> ICANN’s policy authority over the DNS root zone
>     - Providing guidelines for IETF WGs
>     - Providing guidelines for domain name use outside of the IETF
> disposing of some distractions that keep coming up
>     - Clarifying, to the degree possible, who has process authority over
> what (IESG, IAB, this WG, other IETF WGS)

We have previously sent liason statements to ICANN to make them aware of
this work. Personally I would expect that a future liaison statement on
outcomes would need to be supported by an ietf consensus call so I look
to us being able to offer guidance for such a statement.

> Thanks
> 
> Tim/Suzanne
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>