Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

I partially agree. The consequences of generalising .Local and .corp as
pragmatism -> formalised pragmatism is why we are now here.

It may be very uncomfortable backing the steam train out of the dead end,
but if you want to pretend the train only has a forward gear, I think you
wind up in some very awkward places.

So yes. a 6761bis invites criticism and (legitimate) complaint about
procedural unfairness. And, we look silly. And yes, there is no consensus
for a 6761bis.  I'm not claiming I have a big caucus near me, or see one to
join.

I merely noted that there are voices (myself included) who think a revision
might be most useful if it abnegated the right to make these decisions and
said "the root zone vests with other people: ask other people to do things"

-G

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:25:58AM +0200,
>  George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote
>  a message of 87 lines which said:
>
> > you can take the discussion here as indicating some loud voices for
> > "RFC 6761 was a mistake"
>
> It is the RFC we currently have. If we publish a RFC, use it for a big
> corporation whose software used .local, then close the door when free
> software developers want to do the same, we seriously undermine the
> credibility of IETF.
>
> You may like RFC 6761 or not, but saying that it must be used when you
> approve the proposal (.local) and suddenly that it must not be used if
> you don't like the current proposals is not a proper process.
>
> > so the -BIS document should consider one option being to say "we
> > made a mistake: we don't do this"
>
> The current "design team" (which did not produce yet a document
> besides monday's slides) does not reflect a consensus in the working
> group.
>
> It may be interesting to make a 6761bis but first, we need a consensus
> on what are the issues with 6761 and there is no such consensus. (The
> "design team" is too obviously an effort to "close the door" to future
> reservations of special-use TLDs.)
>
>
>