'largely semantic?'
Please do not ever use that phrase again as an attempt to dismiss the
importance of an argument
SEMANTICS IS MEANING
EVERY argument in the IETF is an argument in semantics, that is the
alpha and omega of the IETF process.
Arguments over semantics are only trivial when they are post-facto
attempts to redefine the meaning of what has already been said,
usually futile as one party or other attempts to misrepresent the
content. Arguments over the semantics of a contract are not trivial.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Joe Abley <jabley(_at_)hopcount(_dot_)ca>
wrote:
On 2009-12-02, at 14:12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The alternative would be to not use .local at all and insist on that
approach as a means of avoiding ICANNs perceived perogatives. I think
that would be a bad idea as the spec would not serve its intended
purpose.
Given the existing deployed base of this protocol, and the desire expressed
by many to document what has been deployed, I don't think that insisting that
current practice change is a useful approach.
I read on another list recently the observation that ICANN's draft applicant
guidebook already reserves LOCAL as a name that can't be registered as a new
gTLD.
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-procedures-clean-04oct09-en.pdf
See the table on page 2-6.
I have no involvement with the new gTLD programme at all, but it seems
possible that concern over a clash between a "local" delegation from the root
zone and the use of "local" by Apple and others is largely semantic.
No doubt semantic concern can still be valid; however, I think the
distinction between real lurking operational danger and theoretical
possibility for conflict in the distant future is worth making.
Joe
--
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf