Dear Brian,
I am afraid you do not grasp yet what it represents for the Internet
architecture.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/chinas_new_domain_names_lost_in_translation
At 11:44 02/03/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:...
Ignore China?
No, that would be foolish.
We automatically ignore any pseudo-TLD that only exists within
a walled garden, because it is simply invisible outside.
The walled garden concept does not apply here. This an open garden,
but only because the IETF technology has not documented the
appropriate walls. It is either to evaluate that they are not
necessary under certain conditions or to offer a walling fitting the need.
It isn't part of the global Internet. If it appears in any
way outside the walled garden, it is meaningless.
I think there are a number of examples of this already.
IMHO, what we *should* do is think about how the related
requirement can be properly defined and how it can be
satisfied in the global Internet.
Correct. But this SHOULD stands for 20 years. The ICANN ICP-3
document explicitly asked for experimentation in that area (using a
John Klensin's class oriented suggestion which cannot scale, but goes
in the proper direction).
Architecture-discuss, RFC 3066 Bis saga, reactions to the Chinese
case confirm the IETF is not ready for this yet. The way IETF works
well is in maintaining, not in innovating (it can then be used
obliging to protect the world from its errore, all the more when in
affects IANA). What China timely publishes today is a basic feature
of the International Network: externets. I suggest we leave the
concept mature as a grassroots effort. Just refraining from hurting
it. When the result has been experimented, like for other system, the
IAB will be able to stabilise it and the IETF to maintain it.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf