Hi, On 7/20/15 9:22 PM, John Levine wrote: > [John Klensin's question about taking all of this back to ICANN] is an excellent question, and I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask. > But I have little confidence that ICANN in anything like its current > form, where it is dominated by people who want to collect rent on > every imaginable TLD, would come up with an answer any better than let > them pay $185K and take their chances. That's exactly it. Some mechanism is needed to address pragmatics of a situation, something that the IETF has a pretty good (albeit not perfect) record on addressing. That mechanism could sit at ICANN, the IETF, or even both organizations. No matter what one's opinion of Tor is, the fact is that it's out there and in use. They don't intend that the DNS be used, and yet there is clearly an interaction between the two namespaces at the CA level. It's possible that the CA people could have created a new usage constraint, but history shows that the extension isn't well accepted, and that could actually hinder secure deployment. And so to those who think ICANN should reserving names, one reasonable question would be “why haven't they done so?” Perhaps the answer is that they have sufficient confidence in the approach that we are following that they don't feel the need to do anything else. Someone noted that having a lengthy argument on the IETF list about this a bad thing. If we had to repeat the principles argument without any new information or ideas, I would tend to agree. But otherwise this discussion has served as a healthy self-limiting function over the growth of 6761 reservations; which is exactly what should happen, and perhaps the reason why folks at ICANN should be very confident in the IETF's decision process in this regard. And it call comes down to pragmatics, which, John, you highlighted in your first comment about All of This. That's why I support the draft going forward. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature