IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Sat, 01 November 2014 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8CBA1A87F0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFLnNYQSfKRf for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F54C1A87EF for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id eu11so9015314pac.2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=M8YYmPV21EqQW35w/wNAH2TbncxOYk4ISYDNqBWNQwQ=; b=ChLtxWnV3iQShvMoPPeD7hATwy+m28sPHniWW6X6ZhuVoVh9Fxa3ZCPCxErQ1z2KRD KEw+vDdKRGO8NPuvXvCWyVnjbw751dNanwGnJVVBL27YaN5SU5YB+djpNPXAJUSB5FHw c7hYjpZSJZiHZSOP2lCBRzpOJsNR2VhLwu+uiVxgxcjr+FXCemPo0/3cBsXPIJCaSGdb CWjfdpo4P/72oM6m3Bo8ryjBVH6TE62eJRQQawehCq60hniP62b3DNA3AudgOvjHisnu N2uJm2k3snhpKV8++H5r+AbK7HUDEzDBOw5swDLgbzi42oxtA8W4TDSVFrwwvcRm5LkV elCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkk8D0c9f5H2P/2nW5hfsbelyx/0Jib9KcQXisd6872fZoPYdZokoP8Wxc4vvpokbfn5UJi
X-Received: by 10.66.227.103 with SMTP id rz7mr15203493pac.45.1414820565967; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.11] ([73.162.11.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t11sm10232968pdn.79.2014.10.31.22.42.44 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F1EC5CEE-ABC9-4810-9BA9-E628028F2066"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <54546F63.1060708@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:42:43 -0700
Message-Id: <F0EE4BAE-0D60-4DB1-8FEA-C63E936B6150@virtualized.org>
References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> <54047E4A.30503@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140901094544.0b305698@resistor.net> <54059587.8070608@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20141024004255.0b5ef5d8@resistor.net> <4C1255B9-68C3-45D5-A618-2C7553386DF4@gmail.com> <54522E43.5020709@acm.org> <545428AC.3090802@gmail.com> <7471A339-3938-4D65-81ED-9E27A80EC32B@virtualized.org> <54546F63.1060708@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gnXM_0zM1n61wMWConjR6L4ImqI
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 05:42:49 -0000

Eliot,

On Oct 31, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> On 11/1/14, 3:15 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> RFC 6761 allows for the preemption of _any_ top-level domain name.
>> This would appear to go beyond "technical uses" and get into policy
>> issues regardless of how "technical uses" might be reasonably defined
>> or who does the defining. 
> 
> Is there a specific example that you believe goes beyond technical use? 

First, please define "technical use" for me.

> Also, we have processes to revise 6761 if that is what is necessary, the
> same ones, in fact that were used to create it in the first place.

The same ones in which the folks most active in creating top-level domains and to whom the administration of the domain space was delegated were unaware?

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email