[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Internet Engineering Task Force                            G. Michaelson
Internet-Draft                                                 APNIC P/L
Obsoletes: 6761 (if approved)                          February 22, 2016
Intended status: Informational
Expires: August 25, 2016


                         RFC6761 is now closed
              draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed-01

Abstract

   In hindsight, RFC6761 was a mistake.  This document formally closes
   this process.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





Michaelson               Expires August 25, 2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              February 2016


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   RFC 6761 [RFC6761] specified mechanisms for reserving a top level
   name in the DNS.

   This reversed a prior decision documented by RFC 2860 [RFC2860] to
   close off mechanisms for name assignment in the IETF, the function
   being recognized as vesting with ICANN.

   There is explicit language in RFC2860 which reserved a technical
   function role in domain names:

      4.3.  Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in
      addition to the technical considerations specified by the IETF:
      the assignment of domain names, and the assignment of IP address
      blocks.  These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU.

      Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such
      as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of
      specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks),
      and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy
      issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this
      Section 4.

   In hindsight, re-opening a registry for special cases of technical
   merit inside IETF process has turned out to be a mistake, and
   introduces procedural issues which cannot be adequately addressed
   solely inside a technical process, instead instantiating mechanisms
   which bypass ICANN process.

   The apparent absence of an appropriate technology driven admission
   process inside ICANN methods to assign top level domain names is
   regrettable, but the solution does not lie in vesting the IETF with
   an admissions process.  This has invited (and led to) domain
   squatting, spurious technical arguments, and has destroyed any
   functional vision of an architecture, replacing it with unrelated



Michaelson               Expires August 25, 2016                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              February 2016


   competing requests for more and more names.  This is simply not
   appropriate use of the IETF process.

   Accordingly, this document formally closes the RFC6761 process.  No
   more requests will be entertained in this process and all existing
   names are grandfathered in, but will be relinquished gracefully
   should the technical requirement be demonstrated not to apply any
   more at scale.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Acknowledgements

   This document was written hurredly.  But the intent should be clear.

3.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA is directed to close the Special Use Domain Name registry,
   and MUST NOT admit any further entries in this registry.

4.  Security Considerations

   No new security considerations are introduced by this document.  All
   existing security considerations from prior names in the special-use
   names registry are assumed to continue to exist.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
              Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.

   [RFC6761]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
              RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>.








Michaelson               Expires August 25, 2016                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              February 2016


5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Author's Address

   George Michaelson
   APNIC P/L
   6 Cordelia Street
   Brisbane, Queensland  4101
   Australia

   Phone: +61 3858 3100
   Email: ggm@apnic.net


































Michaelson               Expires August 25, 2016                [Page 4]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/