IETF BOF: LA, March 98

[Bob Allisat <bob@wtv.net>]

>41st INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE	     Last updated: January 27, 1998
>AT-A-GLANCE				      
>
>DATES: March 30 - April 3, 1998       
>
>HOTEL/MEETING SITE: The Westin Bonaventure
>                    404 S. Figueroa Street
>                    Los Angeles, CA, USA 90071
>                    Phone: 800-228-3000
>                           800-228-1212 (Alaska and Hawaii) 
>                           213-624-1000
>                    Fax: 213-612-4797 


 I respectfully request an IETF BOF
 for the upcoming IETF meeting in
 LA. Here is the charter for this
 meeting.


:New Top Level Domain BOF
:
:
:(Time/location To Be Announced)
:================================
:
:Co-Chairs: (To Be Announced)
:
:DESCRIPTION:
:
:New Top Level Domain (nTLD) names have been proposed as a way of
:increasing the namespace choices available to Netizens worldwide.
:Currently people have only two choices: national registries and
:the traditional .COM/.ORG/.NET TLDs. Many nTLDs have been proposed
:to offer expanded identification opportunities for individuals,
:businesses and organizations. However, this raises various issues
:such as how many nTLDs are feasible, what are the required technical
:standards to run a Network Information Center (NIC) or Domain Name
:Registry (DNR) and so on.
:
:nTLD's are becoming more and more essential as more and more people
:utilize the Internet for their everyday communications. Everyone is
:experiencing the problem of a rapidly diminishing number of viable
:Domains. There is an urgent need to define mechanisms to achieve new
:Top Level Domain capabilies.
:
:Some of the issues that need to be addressed are:
:
:1. What are the basic technical requirements for Domain Name Registries
:(DNR)? What are the technical requirements for Network Information
Centres
:(NIC)? Is there a differance between the two and if so we have to begin
:defining those differances?
:
:2. Is there a necessity for various grades or "flavours" of DNR/nTLD
:(ie non-profit, commercial, small, mid-size, corporate). Are "shared"
:and "private" DNR/nTLD technically practical? Can shared and private
:DNRs technically co-exist.
:
:3. What are the limitations and hindrances in existing software which
:may place practical limitations on the number of New TLDs.
:
:4. How to provide Quality of Service while allowing widely dispersed,
:decentralized nTLD/DNRs and NICs.
:
:5. Issues around "Root" servers. There are two basic challenges with
:naming:  How to announce a server based on its nTLD, and how to find
that
:server based on it's IP address.  Currently this is done by 13 private
:Root servers to which all Domain Name Servers computers worldwide point
:to for that information. Is there a need for more Root Servers? What
:sort of technical regulation of these root servers require? How can we
:ensure universality of Internet addressing and still allow maximal
:dispersion of nTLDs, DNRs and NICs?
:
:The goals of the New Top Level Domain Name BOF are:
:
:1. Decide if there is a need to form a working group to solve some or
all
:   of the problems above.
:
:2. Which of the problems above should be addressed by the working
group.
:
:3. What will the working group produce. In our opinion, we need to
interact
:   with other groups such as various bodies of the UN, national
governments,
:   industry representatives and the general Netizenry to solve some or
all of
:   the problems above.
:
:4. What other problems need to be solved for succesful deployment of 
:   new TLD's.
:
:
:AGENDA:
:
:  Introduction, agenda review.
:
:  Issue Briefs - 2 minute summaries of position papers to be filed and 
:  available on-line
:
:  Discussion - succinct questions; 2 minute limit on answers, details
and
:  expansions presented as on-line addenda.
:
:  Conclusion - organizing next steps.
:
:</PRE>


 Previously the response from
 the IETF was as follows below.
 I have phrased the above document
 to adress the specific requirements
 of the IETF. It is my opinion that
 a formal meeting on this topic is
 essential to set technical guide-
 lines for new Top Level Domains.


> X-Sender: fred@stilton.cisco.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:49:10 -0800
> To: Bob Allisat <tor@wtv.net>
> From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: New Top Level Domain Name BOF @ IETF
> Cc: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
> 
> Bob:
> 
> We have had some discussion and debate on your proposed BOF, and I want to
> let you know what we have come up with.
> 
> The simple fact is that the time for submission of BOF requests has passed,
> and I believe had passed before I received your email. We are out of slots,
> and I therefore don't have a good place to put you. The Secretariat (which
> is to say Marcia) is scrambling right now to fit into the agenda the
> various folks who did get their requests in on time, and that isn't being
> easy either.
> 
> Besides that, you haven't posted to me a BOF Agenda. This is a critical
> part of BOF considerations, as it gives us knowledge of what you propose to
> talk about, who you expect to be there, and what your action plan is coming
> out of the BOF. Agreed, you gave us some of that information in your
> various emails, but we do in fact ask that it be complete and in our
> format. Call it bureaucracy if you please, but with the size of the IETF
> meetings we have been forced to introduce some.
> 
> What I would suggest is that you contact Steve Coya <scoya@ietf.org> for a
> sample BOF proposal, and a list of what information he would need in order
> to schedule a BOF at the spring meeting in LA. This would be hosted, if it
> occurs, in the General Area, which is to say that I would be the
> responsible Area Director, and the people requesting the BOF (you and
> others, presumably) would need to work with me on the charter, selection of
> chairs, etc.
> 
> What we will be looking for in the charter is the technical issues that
> need to be addressed. Note that the IETF does not generally deal with
> policy issues. In this case there is a process in place to handle the
> policy issues, which has been agreed to by a list of organizations
> world-wide, including the ITU.  Policy concerns would therefore not be
> deemed sufficient to cause us to charter such a meeting. Technical issues
> that I would expect to find might be needed protocols (or progress on such
> protocols) or database records to support shared registries, or other
> matters in that class. If there exist bona fide technical issues that are
> not being addressed in another working group, that would be cause to
> charter a BOF.
> 
> You included a reference to an email that you sent to the MOU list
> suggesting this BOF. If this is further discussed on those lists, you
> should forward this note to them as well so that the IETF's position is
> clear.
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Fred Baker                          | While one person hesitates because
> IETF Chair                          | he feels inferior, the other is
> 519 Lado Drive                      | busy making mistakes and becoming
> Santa Barbara, California 93111     | superior.
> VOICE   +1 408 526 4257             |           --  Henry C. Link
> FAX     +1 805 681-0115             |
> PAGE:   send max 70 character message to fbaker@airnote.com


 TeleVirtually Yours,

 Bob Allisat

 Director, World TeleVirtual Network             http://www.wtv.net
 PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2                 info@wtv.net