IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-eastlake-2606bis-00.txt: Suggestions for modifications

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> Thu, 03 November 2005 15:50 UTC

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>
Subject: RE: draft-eastlake-2606bis-00.txt: Suggestions for modifications
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:50:24 -0500
Lines: 34
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org Thu Nov 03 17:08:07 2005
Return-path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418072103.2560.84813.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

Alex,

Well, I can't see any problem with just putting it "in RFCs". RFCs are frequently used to provide more convenient access to standards/policies of other organizations. Presumably the questions is whether it should be in a Best Current Practice.

As the specifier and maintainer of the DNS protocol, it seems to me reasonable for the IETF to specify Best Current Practices for test / example domain names. Furthermore, if there are labels that might best be reserved and not used or reserved for certain purposes due to widespread use, such as .localhost, or IETF specified and maintained syntax, such as numeric TLDs, or to avoid confusion with IETF organizations, such as "ietf" as a 2nd level domain name, or which the IETF might want to reserve for future syntax/protocol development, such as "tagged" labels or one character labels, it seems reasonable to document such things in a Best Current Practice RFC. If the reservation is by another organization, such as ICANN/IANA in this case, then it seems reasonable to me for the BCP to document agreements with this other organization, state requests to the other organization (presumably as S
 HOULDs), and, to the extent that it fits into or reasonably close to all this, state poli!
 cies of the other organization. In this case, it is important to be clearer about who is in charge of what than I was in this -00 draft.

Thanks,
Donald

PS: There certainly exist many old registrations which violate the desired policies. ietf.com and x.com resolve just fine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Bligh [mailto:alex@alex.org.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 3:47 AM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Alex Bligh
Subject: RE: draft-eastlake-2606bis-00.txt: Suggestions for modifications

--On 02 November 2005 22:58 -0500 Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> wrote:

> So I obtained the closest ICANN policy statement I could to the IANA 
> 2nd level label policy, spliced it in,

To what extent should we be reproducing ICANN policy in RFCs?

Alex

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email