RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation from 'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL recommendations

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am thinking that there aren't any, but it bears a second 'look'.  And the
interaction on single letters at top and second level were noted by the
technical experts related to RFC 1035. Has that question actually been
resolved? I think it may need a sentence or two to describe, and then we
should ask the technical experts to clarify whether they have a caution or
concern, or think that it does indeed conflict with an RFC. Since single
letters exist in the legacy TLDs, which are not single letters, at the
second level, we know that there are not problems at the second level, in
NON single letter TLDs. However, the reference to the interaction between
singleletter.single letter was mentioned  so needs to be clarified. 

 

In recommending a test, that would be step one. Would that 'test ' result
then be used as the basis for any RFC change? IF one is needed? 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Patrick Jones
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:45 AM
To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'
Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation from
'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL recommendations

 

I would think that the process to change RFCs goes through the IETF, and it
takes some time. Is there a recommendation in the RN WG report that goes
against an RFC? I thought the recommendation on single letter names at the
top level identified a potential problem with existing RFCs, and recommended
testing.

 

Patrick

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:35 AM
To: 'Nevett, Jonathon'; 'Alistair DIXON'; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation from
'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL recommendations

 

I am assuming that we are moving ahead with this then, Greg, can you call me
today and perhaps look over some text, to be pasted on top of the
recommendations. One question I have is that we need the sections you and
Alistair are drafting by today, or we will  need to advise them that they
will get two transmissions, each with two short documents. Shouldn't we also
include the draft report, as a courtesy, so that they are able to see the
recommendation in the context overall? 

Finally, I have a question for this group, that I need to post to the full
RN WG. 

 

What is the process by which changes in RFC recommendations, when they
conflict with a proposed recommendation in the RN WG report? Will it be
sufficient to document that there has been a technical 'test', or that
allocations of such examples exist, without apparent disruption, or will it
be necessary to undertake a formal approach to updating RFCs, and how would
that work? 

 

I'll post that question to the RN WG. 

 

Best regards,

 

Marilyn Cade

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:42 AM
To: Alistair DIXON; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation from
'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL recommendations

 

As do I. Thanks. Jon

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Alistair DIXON [mailto:Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Wednesday, May 02, 2007 01:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting
confirmation from 'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL
recommendations

I also agree with Marilyn's suggested approach.

Alistair

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2007 14:27
To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation
from 'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL
recommendations


I concur with Marilyn's suggestion, with Chuck's caveats.