Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

John,

On Jun 30, 2008, at 5:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> The other two things that seem to be getting lost in this discussion  
> is that one can write all of the RFCs one like, but rules like this  
> are ultimately useless unless ICANN agrees to them

ICANN has already deferred to the IETF on technical matters (see  
IDNs).  I'm unclear why ICANN would ignore IETF technical input on  
this matter.

> I don't know if the gNSO would like that or not, but it seems to  
> argue that we should be conservation about what names we reserve and  
> thereby promote.

Yep.  The only additional label (to those in 2606) that seems to have  
a technical justification for being disallowed would appear to be  
".local" due to the zeroconf(-like) mechanisms that use it.

> Perhaps we should ask ICANN to reserve all single-letter TLDs (in  
> any script) for IETF use.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but what would be the technical  
justification?

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf