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

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 01 July 2008 20:51 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 2874A3A67A2; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:51:37 -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 A91F03A67A2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JN-6hKKyNnwU for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FECC3A63D3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m61Kpeg7002813 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:51:40 -0400
Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m61KpVZM128278 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:51:34 -0600
Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m61KpUx7027010 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:51:30 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-245-164.mts.ibm.com [9.65.245.164]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m61KpOCO026446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:51:29 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid-new [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id m61KpLeq021685 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:51:22 -0400
Message-Id: <200807012051.m61KpLeq021685@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
In-reply-to: <9486A1E5-864F-4B23-9EBA-697C1A7A7520@ca.afilias.info>
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464@multicasttech.com> <74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340@resistor.net> <A9ACF7FB-BC78-44D9-AA61-4FCACE821677@virtualized.org> <9486A1E5-864F-4B23-9EBA-697C1A7A7520@ca.afilias.info>
Comments: In-reply-to Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info> message dated "Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:31:47 -0400."
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:51:19 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info> writes:

> A better approach, I think, would be for proposed TLDs to pass  
> technical review through some suitable body who could consider each  
> case on its merits.

As in https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf,
starting at chart 11? 

Also, for TLDs like .local, one could also to some extent just say
"buyer beware". Anyone wanting a TLD that is known to not be useable
in practice (for some deployed software) would get what they
deserve. :-) The folk wanting TLDs presumably want TLDs that can
actually be used...

That said, I would expect requests for TLDs that would cause real
technical or operational problems to be turned down. There is a step
in the process for input of the form "um, bad idea because..."

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> writes:

> I think all the external evidence is that ICANN is deeply reluctant to
> set up mechanisms that require the application of common sense (a.k.a.
> judgment) as to whether or not a particular domain name may be
> registered.

Perhaps I've had too much of the Kool Aid, but there are steps in
place that are intended to catch potential technical/operational
problems with proposed TLDs. Maintaining DNS stability is a core theme
that appears throughout ICANN.

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> writes:

> 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'll second that. If the IETF were to say "bad idea" for any
particular TLD (or class of TLDs), I think ICANN would listen.

Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf