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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Tue, 08 July 2008 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C423A6B77; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B489E3A6B77 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4rRRMXqppbKT for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E86C3A69B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-68-122-70-168.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.168]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m681EnCC004499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4872BF88.5040706@bbiw.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:14:48 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: Your message of <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org> <48724347.6020500@dcrocker.net> <18BA25DED8BFD9F794A10E84@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <18BA25DED8BFD9F794A10E84@p3.JCK.COM>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/7659/Mon Jul 7 14:51:18 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


John C Klensin wrote:
>      What do
> you think would happen to that recommendation, and the benefits
> it affords, if the size of the root zone increased by an order
> of magnitude or so?  


2 orders?  20K?

No, sorry.  Think 3-4 orders of magnitude.

Really.

Let me explain: I'm not against more TLDs.  Quite the opposite.  (I appointed by 
Postel to participate in the pre-ICANN committee tasked with increasing the number.)

But there is a paradigmatic difference between a TLD defined and operated to 
mediate on behalf of a general and diverse population, versus one constrained to 
a narrow and controlled constituency, such as a single company.

The number of the latter is quite large.  And by that I mean *really* large.

And all of the questions I asked 10 years ago said that TLDs on that latter 
scale would be problematic to the root.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf