On 2009-12-27, at 20:16, John Levine wrote:
It seems to me that if we think it's a good idea to specify a domain
name that doesn't exist, we're better off clarifying the status of the
ones already specified rather than inventing new ones. Since the
people who manage .ARPA are the exact same people who manage the root
(IANA, operated by ICANN, in both cases), one is as likely to flake as
the other.
Operational management is not what I was talking about (assuming it was my
recent comments that triggered that observation). I was expressing concern over
policy. I think the policy that governs the administration of the ARPA zone is
far easier to characterise in an IETF context than that of the root zone.
In fact, ICANN is quite aware of the reserved names list. In the
current draft of the application process, one of the steps is to
check to see if a proposed name is one of the Reserved ones, in which
case the application fails immediately. Here's their reserved list:
AFRINIC IANA-SERVERS NRO
ALAC ICANN RFC-EDITOR
APNIC IESG RIPE
ARIN IETF ROOT-SERVERS
ASO INTERNIC RSSAC
CCNSO INVALID SSAC
EXAMPLE* IRTF TEST*
GAC ISTF TLD
GNSO LACNIC WHOIS
GTLD-SERVERS LOCAL WWW
IAB LOCALHOST
IANA NIC
Again, I am not involved in existing or proposed future policy for the root
zone, but I'm confused as to what you are attempting to achieve through
draft-levine-reserved-names-registry-00.
If you're proposing to ICANN that they cede control over the reserved names
list for the root zone to an IANA registry controlled by an IETF process (RFC
publication, according to your current text), then this doesn't seem like the
venue to propose that.
If you're proposing that the IETF document a list of names that has change
control and authorship homed within ICANN, then I'm not sure what the benefit
of that is.
If you're making some other proposal, then I am currently missing it.
Could you explain?
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf