On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > George, > > IANA is part of ICANN. All this does is extricate the IETF for once > and for all from any usage of .int. What happens to .int after that is > no business of the IETF's. This is an informational RFC and the first > sentence of the Introduction is factual information. If there's some aspect > of that that you disagree with, that's between you and ICANN. It's factual information whose language appears fluid: The Draft changed more than just words, it changed semantic intent. What you seem to say is "but its between this drafts authors and ICANN since all it does is remove IETF facing burdens" ok. Fair enough. > > In terms of authority, authority over TLDs has resided with ICANN since > 1998, except for .arpa and this tiny corner of .int. The IETF is now > documenting what has been a fact for many years: this tiny corner of > .int is totally obsolete. It's documenting it's obsolete in as much as IETF documents and IETF purposeful delegations shouldn't be "in" it and the contractual burdens of being a registrar for the space are IANA's business, not the IETFs. Fine. > > Personally I'm very grateful to Kim and Amanda for tidying this up Yes. I am too. And I would think Toerless as well. There is no implication I think Kim or Amanda didn't do something useful. I am not entirely content that a sentence about what the domain is "for" appears to be fluid. I guess, if the only purpose of the draft is to document "whatever it's for, its not for the IETF" that's fine. But it seems strange to be so lax about language here. I think being imprecise in this kind of document leads to future problems. Thats all. -G -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
