Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Can I just point out here that the only real technical points that have been raised in this discussion thus far, at least that I can recall, are that:

(1) defining sTLDs produces a small (relatively) amount of useless traffic at the root
(2) defining sTLDs may have trademark implications that the IETF is not competent to address
(3) supporting sTLDs in stub resolvers requires changes to stub resolvers
(4) it would be nice to have stable specifications for the proposed sTLDs

There have been a lot of expressions of strong opinion on this topic, many coming from people whose opinions I generally respect, but none of these have been rooted in any technical argument that was in any way overtly expressed.

Please do not respond to this message by re-asserting your strong opinion.   Please do not respond to this message by asserting that there's a better way than what's been proposed in the draft we are discussing, in your opinion.

I assume that there is some reason for the strong negative reaction some DNS glitterati have expressed towards this proposal, but whatever that reason is has not yet been expressed.   If you have an inkling of what that reason might be, and it is not simply a strong feeling based on history, a feeling of dislike for one of the proposed name resolution protocols, or a concern about how someone might react to the IESG taking action on this, I would greatly appreciate it if you could express that reason.

I should point out that I don't have the power to call consensus on this, so you don't need to get all upset if you think this conversation is not going in the direction you want.   I'm just trying to figure out why this has generated so much heat, and so little light.

And, it is gently snowing outside.  Yay!