Re: I-D ACTION:draft-main-sane-tld-00.txt

[Zefram <zefram@fysh.org>]

Edward Lewis wrote:
>My immediate reaction was that allocating any kind of TLD is within the
>baliwick of ICANN, not the IETF nor any of the WGs.

Oh indeed, the creation of the kind of TLD that my I-D suggests would
require work with ICANN.  That's not what I'm trying to do at this
stage.  I'm only trying to establish the technical problem, the need
for a certain type of domain name, which seems to be a technical issue,
concerning many Internet protocols, rather than a pure policy matter.
Or is ICANN more of a technical body than I previously realised?

I see a three stage process that would be necessary before the kind of
TLD I argue for could be created.  Firstly, statement of the technical
problem, which is what I'm trying to do here.  Secondly, development
of the details of a solution.  Only after these two stages are complete
could we consider actually creating a new domain as part of the solution.
It seems to me that the first stage is very much an IETF matter, and
the third largely an ICANN matter.  The middle stage I had thought of
as primarily a technical, hence IETF, matter, but perhaps ICANN input
would be needed there also?

You're quite right that this isn't really a DNS protocol issue, at least
no more than RFC 2826 is.  As I said, it's not quite in dnsop's charter.
Perhaps it would fit better under the Applications Area or the Internet
Area?

-zefram