Re: [Ianaplan] Response to my IANAPLAN Draft appeal.

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 09 July 2015 22:13 UTC

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:13:02 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <20150709221302.GS558@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20150709213216.D420D1A03D5@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20150709213216.D420D1A03D5@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/8aG21TU_zWNiKMTy9RHEB7ZabaE>
Cc: WG/IANAPLAN <ianaplan@ietf.org>, "iucg@ietf.org" <iucg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Response to my IANAPLAN Draft appeal.
Precedence: list

[cc:s trimmed]

Hi,

Just two things.  

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:31:50PM +0200, Jefsey wrote:

> The IESG/IAB appeal process is now finished. It concludes that the RFC 2026
> process has been rigorously respected.
[…]
> - along RFC 2026, in trying to ask for them from the ISOC Chair.

I cannot tell whether in the first pair of sentences, the "It
concludes" means that the appeals conclude that, but that you don't
agree; or whether you mean that the appeal process having gone the way
it did, that conclusion shows that the RFC 2026 process has been
rigorously respected.  If the latter, then you can't ask anything from
ISOC, because appeal to the ISOC BoT (not the Chair, note) of an IAB
decision is only permitted on procedural grounds.  This is the
distinction between sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2, and section 6.5.3, of
RFC 2026.  I imagine you know that, but I just wanted to remind
everyone.

> includes the "FL" (Free/LIBRE) DNS CLASS testing. This will be an RFC 6852
> global community experimentation that will adhere to the "Experimentation"
> section of the ICANN Internet Coordination Policy statement number 3 (quoted
> below). This is the way I proceeded in 2003/2004 when I conducted the
> "dot-root" community test-bed.
> 
> I am certainly willing to coordinate and/or discuss this testing with you
> and ICANN, as I expect it to provide, potentially everyone, with experience
> in cooperation/competition operational and normative relations between RFC
> 6852 Global Communities (such as ICANN and the LIBRE Global Community).

I note that
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-2
includes a range of CLASS values, from 65280-65534, that are reserved
for private use.  This was defined in RFC 6895.  If you perform an
experiment, I urge you to use those class values, which will relieve
you of the requirement to do any co-ordinating with anyone outside
your experiment group.  I will also observe that I think DNSOP would
very much appreciate data from your experiment regarding how DNAME and
CNAME work under it, ideally in a parallel namespace (as is claimed to
be expected by STD 13, anyway).

Best regards,

A

PS: not only am I speaking for myself, but I also recused myself from
the appeal consideration because of my previous role in handling the
document.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

Re: [Ianaplan] Response to my IANAPLAN Draft appe… Andrew Sullivan
[Ianaplan] Response to my IANAPLAN Draft appeal. Jefsey