Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-U

Geoff,

On Jul 21, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
> I find the reversion of putting the IETF back into the frame
> for a repeat play an amazing poor move on the part of all concerned.
I would agree, however I don't believe that's what we're discussing.

I thought we were talking about how to deal with the reality that there are 
non-global and/or non-DNS uses of domain names. RFC 6761 has created a 
mechanism to describe those uses, but did not provide any criteria by which a 
decision would be made as to whether the domain names would be reserved for 
that use (well other than Standards action or IESG decision).

That is, RFC 6761 has already placed the IETF back into that particular frame. 
However, if we assume the requests made for Special Use Names are technical and 
not political or economic, it would seem the IETF would be the right place to 
come up with the criteria by which those names are placed on the Special Use 
Names registry, no?

> Furthermore, I appreciate and support John’s analysis and suggested
> approach here.
John's suggested approach confuses me.

It seems to be suggesting that ICANN should take on the role of doing the 
technical analysis of whether a particular protocol meets a set of technical 
criteria specified in a document in which the ICANN community had no input.

That can't be right, so I suspect I misunderstand.

Regards,
-drc

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail