[NCAP-Discuss] Current Status of the NCAP Project

[rubensk at nic.br]

> On 14 Nov 2022, at 16:57, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com> wrote:
> 
> Rubens,
> The written system for a Name Collision Assessment Framework is supposed to be in place for all future rounds and as you know, future rounds are supposed to be ongoing based on the policy adopted in the Sub Pro Final Report.   It's not at all about IPv6 TODAY.

It's not just today. The current situation of IPv4/IPv6 is going to be there for decades. Try asking Apple, Google, Microsoft, BSD and Linux developers when they plan to remove IPv4 support from the default configuration of the operating systems they maintain now and in the future. They will stare at you in shock.

Is it really a design goal of NCAP to be valid a century from now ? That would be a real challenge.


> 
> I’ll add that anyone who wants to see .MAIL move forward (as you have advocated many times) won't be happy with a fallback to the 2012 Framework which bans it.  In addition, I don't know how

I couldn't care less about .MAIL moving forward or not. What I have raised many times is that .MAIL is a different collision string due to the dotless nature of most collisions (which can only be noted comparing root servers and recursive servers, or doing what nowadays is called an active collision assessment), so it could have a different outcome from .CORP and .MAIL by adding data to look into the non-dotless collisions of .MAIL. Note that the additional data can either suggest a path forward for .MAIL or suggest its forever ban from delegation, and I will be comfortable with either, provided the data supports the decision.

The 2012 framework doesn't ban .MAIL or .HOME or .CORP; the 2012 implementation of that framework, by the contractors that in newspeak would be the TRT, decided to ban them when they looked at the available data from the perspective of the framework and their knowledge of computer systems.

It's also the second time in the last few days you write about how you think I think; I suggest leaving that to the subject matter expert on how I think, which happens to be me.

It also might be a good time to mention that you have client(s) with a keen interest on .MAIL, while I don't and I won't.


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221114/472d974a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221114/472d974a/signature.asc>