Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 24 July 2014 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0621A01BD for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtO8JyQrWM5f for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7C21A01AF for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.141.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OAfxBZ029604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406198531; x=1406284931; bh=HQ4F8KwaWY6mvjLeautJwBRublY5whFMoLBmSo3v6VA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=un6ib1wBD+pfCYfVJLcTpaYmLF93GW4lSdStTbsLIXLVytGMSghf4hiaIHMIZQZay lhS3og8bmTHr5017gVCXbY2ePwz5gG2hM+G+KdDUH1iLdruUamwVM3nQ/m39ewGOaf E/r61eaXV9Dd899ShUG/D880qmYXUZyWlYhm0vJM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406198531; x=1406284931; i=@elandsys.com; bh=HQ4F8KwaWY6mvjLeautJwBRublY5whFMoLBmSo3v6VA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=tSS7p1phoGhvu/9vhwQfqzqA1nZ/BSWK/sTIRq56+nLIE3xhpS3oBzxoHn2j2drUI bry6LSEAJnUqizn441+hG+hvnP6ZbkldyZLnLFJ/TuytqHpz/mu3XBTXqUqlEow57f qItgspHzeDsRnBS53k+v0dJoTNUwpxX2VlrbWU1I=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140724012237.0ce22978@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:31:05 -0700
To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, internetgovtech@iab.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D02D53.6070501@acm.org>
References: <A193D048-2B67-469A-93BA-C61BB362DA75@vigilsec.com> <53CD1E8A.1060804@acm.org> <FA4238C4-ADDC-435F-9591-E3B074C2F6F6@vigilsec.com> <53CD2300.5050307@acm.org> <20140721143105.GH16966@mx1.yitter.info> <53CD291E.1020801@acm.org> <9045EC0A-E123-4CDC-B87F-5BC32C644C85@istaff.org> <53CD57E8.4000909@acm.org> <B7163126-31B6-4CC6-A711-F225051C294A@istaff.org> <53CD8F41.9060909@gih.com> <53CD939D.5020001@cisco.com> <9DE8F705-9748-407D-8E77-7B787ACD9873@gmail.com> <53CE4B39.1090202@acm.org> <53D016B6.2020000@gih.com> <53D01E6B.8020606@gmail.com> <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org> <53D02828.1030805@gmail.com> <53D02D53.6070501@acm.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Fhwe_-eOvzmqomih1PtCqo5SFO0
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:42:15 -0000

Hi Avri,
At 14:46 23-07-2014, Avri Doria wrote:
>RFC 6761 Special Use Domain Names
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761
>
>Allows for protocol that meet certain conditions to reserve TLDs.

In my opinion there was, at most, rough consensus on that 
document.  I did not like what the document was proposing as it could 
be argued in future that it was intruding into the policy side.

The following paragraph is a technical opinion.  Should .local be 
delegated to as a gTLD?  My recommendation is no as public 
information collected from various points on the internet shows that 
the .local string is in use.  Some of the computers used by the 
people reading this list contribute to that usage.

What if some company insists on buying .local?  That company will 
come back later and complain that the (purchased) string is not 
working because of technical problems; someone will suggest that the 
IETF has to find a solution to those technical problems.  It is up to 
the policy side to assess this paragraph and the previous one to 
determine whether the .local string should be delegated.

The reason not to have that document is that Person X will come and 
ask for a string as Company Y got a string.  This is where one might 
have to consider whether the decision taken is arbitrary 
[1].  Anyway, the document has been published.  In my opinion there 
is a valid concern.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.