ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606

2008-07-04 14:53:08


John Levine wrote:
The problem isn't just "inability to use" -- it's that other parties
exist who may claim the usage right, and provide citations to RFCs to
back up their claim.

There are several ICANN documents describing the new process that
include a set of recommendations to guide the process.  You must have
read them, since you are concerned about this proposal.  Do you think
that recommendations 3, 4, and 20 are adequate to address this
problem?  If not, why not?


John, et al,

While I think it entirely appropriate to check whether any of us has a clue about what ICANN is actually doing, I do suggest that reference to a document warrants providing a specific citation, particularly when there are so many possible choices at the ICANN cite.

I'm guessing you mean:

<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc43798015>

and specifically the Recommendations table.

If so...

No. 3 is about legal infringement. That seems wholly irrelevant to the scope of IETF work, although I agree that the ietf list thread has started using language that sounds related.

No. 4 says "Strings must not cause any technical instability." which sounds exactly within IETF scope covers the gist of the technical aspects of the ietf list discussion.

No. 20 seems to have to do with failing a popularity contest. Probably a good escape clause to include, but not all that relevant to our I discussion... I hope.

Let me stress that I do think language like "claim the usage right" makes No. 3 sound appropriate, but that the scope of IETF RFCs is technical specifications, rather than "rights". While yes, one can say that reserving a name or proscribing against the use of a name -- such as a single, top-level label as a standalone name -- can be interpreting as declaring a "right", I suggest that an IETF discussion will fare much better by focusing on the technical issues that lead to the constraints, rather than attempting a quasi-pseudo-meta-legal discussion.

Simply put: If an IETF specification has gone through the IETF consensus process and been approved, the requirements and constraints imposed are almost by definition technical requirements.

Violating one of them invites instability, if only because it invites variable implementations. At the least, treating such constraints as subject to creative interpretation by another body renders all output of the IETF fluid.

And just to press this to a logical conclusion, albeit not one that seems to be at issue... yet: If ICANN believes that the IETF has issued a problematic specification, then ICANN needs to ask the IETF to fix it, rather than to have ICANN, or anyone else, issue a modification/clarification.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>