Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:39AM -0400,
 John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 75 lines which said:

> If someone came to the IETF with a new piece of protocol that needed
> a reserved domain name and asked for a root-level name, I assume
> they would get a lot of pushback suggesting that they use a ARPA.

If you cannot show (by acts, not by words) to these people that it
works (they will get a .ARPA, and without spending years in
discussions), we may convince them. If, as I suspect, it is as
difficult to get a .ARPA (or a .ALT) that it is to have a TLD, then we
won't convince them.

> subtree or some commercially-available subdomain instead.

Then depending on the good will of several more actors (the registry,
the registrar if the TLD uses the RRR system, etc). You won't convince
anybody with that.

> rather than engaging with the IETF when the protocols were being
> designed, the community involved decided to pick a TLD-style name,
> squat on it, deploy,

Come on, be realistic. Imagine a naive but eager Joe Developer coming
to the IETF with a proposal to use .carrot for a new naming system. He
would be immediately smashed with dozens of very long process-oriented
emails telling him that he is stupid, that he did not read all the
relevant RFCs, that we know better and that he should first read about
the DNS (which, let me remind you, is documented in many different RFC
with conflicting terminology), not mentioning the persons who would
ask Joe (real email, sent this week on dnsop) to go to ICANN with a
cheque of 185 k$.

Joe would immediately go back to his favorite editor and continue
coding without thinking more about the IETF and he would be right.