Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, September 12, 2016, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> As we discussed in Berlin, we need to move forward with adopting a problem
> statement draft for further work on special use domain names.
>
> Issues of usage around the domain name space are part of our charter, and
> the IESG has expressed interest more than once in having a clear basis for
> dealing with future cases such as the request for .onion in the special use
> domain names registry or the needs of the HNCP protocol. The Chairs
> determined that the WG should have a problem statement before attempting to
> specify changes to RFC 6761 or other possible solutions.
>
> The problem statement needs to be a WG document, with a WG commitment to
> get to consensus on it.
>
> We have two internet-drafts that have been submitted for discussion as
> problem statements. They’re both individual submissions and the work of
> their named authors. They cover many common features of the landscape but
> they’re also written from slightly different viewpoints. It seems unlikely
> that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask the WG to choose.
>
> Both drafts have been revised in the last few days.
>
> The drafts are:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/
>
> We’re opening a 2-week discussion period for the WG, to end on Sept. 26.
> At the end of that time we’ll adopt one of these drafts for further work by
> the WG.
>


Thank you - we are looking forward to any and all comments, and a healthy
debate...

Please, I know many are tired of this topic, but it really is important, so
please participate and send in your views.

W



>
>
> Shortly thereafter we will also be soliciting views on how the IETF might
> address the problems we’ve identified with special use domain names.
>
> Please read these drafts and tell us which you think the WG can adopt as a
> problem statement, from the IETF perspective, about the various issues
> we’ve discussed on special use names. We need your comments on the record—
> being able to demonstrate the WG’s decision process is important— so please
> write to the list.
>
> Assuming some level of agreement on a problem statement, we’re tentatively
> scheduling an interim WG meeting for next steps, in mid-October.
>

>
> thanks all,
> Tim & Suzanne
>
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf