Subject: dnsind -> dnsext

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:06:39 -0800 (PST)

> 1) Not within the documented charter of DNSIND
> 2) Not within the documented proposed charter of DNSEXT

BTW: DNSEXT was approved 2 weeks ago.
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html

And any day now the garbage collection will remove DNSIND from 
the charter page (we missed doing that when dnsext was approved).

  Erik

---

From: "Martin J. Duerst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:14:36 +0900

At 09:00 99/12/29 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 9:41 PM -0500 12/28/99, John Gilmore wrote:
> >However, I hope the WG chairs will ask for a WG consensus on *this*
> >document, and also put a stake through its heart.  We have enough real
> 
> I agree with John Gilmore and Robert Elz.  This work item is:
> 
> 3) Placing a requirement on IANA's assignment of names

It looks as if many people in this group have come up
with good arguments for having something like .local
or .intra.

If this does not fit the charter of DNSIND,
then I propose that it is handed over to the IESG saing:
'This is not on our charter, and therefore not submitted
as a WG document, but it's something that a lot of people
on the WG felt to be useful, and we wouldn't want to just
drop it on the floor, so could you process this as a
document that was individually submitted to the IESG?'.

Also, if this document isn't within the proposed
charter of DNSEXT, then it may be possible to change
that charter, as it is still proposed.

As for IANA, most of what IANA does is constrained by RFCs.
So this is in no way new. TLDs are politically hotter than
other IANA assignements, but while the proposal of new true
TLDs is probably the politically hottest issue overall, the
current proposal is clearly grounded in technical management
purposes, and therefore clearly a technical business that the
IETF has to take care of. Any ip number allocation scheme that
wouldn't take care of things such as loopback *before* handing
over the rest of the number blocks to some political or whatever
agency to hand out would clearly be considered technically
deficient, and if the experts on this group think that they
have found a similar deficiency in TLDs, and a way to fix it,
then there should be ways to deal with things such as charters.

One specific problem that we might worry about is the danger
that .intra somehow leaks to the outside (through DNS, or on
other levels, e.g. in an URI).

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:[email-masked]   http://www.w3.org