[dns-operations] Emoji "Female" symbol fails to resolve at Google's 18.104.22.168 & 22.214.171.124
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Mon Jul 17 12:20:23 UTC 2017
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:38:54PM +0200, David Conrad wrote:
> I remain curious: are you suggesting that if the IETF were to
> standardize on something that in the view of (say) ICANN's Security
> and Stability Advisory Committee would be detrimental to the
> "security and stability of the Internet's system of unique
> identifiers" that the ICANN organization would be required to
> implement that standard, regardless of ICANN's Bylaws?
I don't exactly know what "required to implement" means there, but I'm
also not totally sure what we're talking about.
I can imagine cases where the IETF created a standard that took part
of the domain name space out of the scope of DNS (because of course
that's happened before: local and onion are both examples of this).
If ICANN then decided to delegate those things in the DNS anyway, I
think that would be evidence that ICANN was not behaving consistently
with the security and stability of the Internet identifiers.
I can imagine cases where the IETF works merrily without anyone
noticing the breakage in some proposal, despite the fact that ICANN
has staff who actively participate in the IETF and others who are
interested in the stability and security of the DNS also participate
in the IETF. I can even imagine such a proposal making it through
IETF LC without anyone noticing what has happened. (Arguably, this
case also happened before, in the case of the not-quite-special-use
reservation from HOMENET.) This case is a process failure, and while
I wouldn't expect ICANN to _implement_ this (whatever that means) I
would expect ICANN to be tolerant of others' process failures in much
the way others are tolerant of ICANN's: criticise the organization
that failed while yet holding back from proceeding as though the
failure didn't happen.
But I can also imagine cases where the IETF develops a standard that
is good for the Internet but that is not good for the business model
of ICANN or many of its most important contributors. In the case
where ICANN's SSAC decides that that is bad for the security and
stability of the Internet's system of unique identifiers" because in
fact undermining some part of that system _is the point_, then yes, I
would expect ICANN not to do anything inimical to that standard
anyway. I would also expect the IETF's standardization of such a
thing to be a fairly significant event, and that the IETF would be
hearing during the standardization effort the views of those who had
doubts about the proposal.
I hope that makes clearer what I'm imagining.
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
More information about the dns-operations