Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jul 24, 2015, at 6:31 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, OK.  If the plan isn't that we get to look at every name in the next round, what names do we get to look at?

If something like this were to have any hope of working, which I am not convinced it would anymore, it would have to be a list of names that came through every so often, and got last called. Any individual name for which someone raises an objection would have to be discussed.

That's just how the ICANN new TLD program worked. There was a deadline by which all the applications had to be in, 1900 of them last time, and then a sequence of deadlines for the various groups doing the various evaluations. I was on one of the technical panels, and there were applications that we failed, and had to be corrected. Some of the isues were unexpected, e.g. the string similarity between .unicorn and .unicom, eventually resolved by .unicorn withdrawing.

We could have looked at the names and put in technical stability objections at the same time everyone else was objecting for other reasons.

I think that one of the reasons people are resistant to this is that in fact it really does suck that it’s either the IETF or ICANN that has to do this, and it could indeed be a DoS attack on the IETF in theory.

Yes, that's certainly a problem. But it seems that looking at one big bunch of names every three years would be less of a hit than trickling them through individually or in handfuls.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxxx, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]