On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 12:35:44PM -0500, Paul Wouters <p...@cypherpunks.ca> wrote a message of 56 lines which said:
> Why wasn't .bofh on that list? I don't know it. Where is it documented? Also, RFC 6761 does not say that you MUST register everything, it only explains what is to be done if you want to register a name. > Why was .gnu on that list? The GNUnet top-level was named .gads at a time. I do not know the reasons for the change. > It would make more sense to me to reserve something like .alt This is not the approach chosen by RFC 6761 so I believe you are a little late. > people can plugin onion.alt, gnu.alt, etc, and are guaranteed that > the .alt domain will never actually be delegated by the root. Avoiding a collision with an ICANN domain is not the only rationale for RFC 6761. The main idea is to have a registry of domains which require special handling by software (for instance, "do not use DNS, send to mDNS"). > And once you go that way, one can wonder why not use the already > existing .local for that? Because it follows different rules, described in RFC 6762. > But can an RFC even do anything here? Whether you agree with ICANN > procedures for new gTLDs or not, if I write some software that > becomes popular using a .paul pseudo domain, when does it become > valid for me to request it under RFC 6761? RFC 6761 does not say anything about that. Do note a TLD has already been registered under RFC 6761, .local. Some people may say that, when you are a big US company, just hijack the TLD, deploy the software, and the IETF will ruberstamp you. But if you are just ordinary people working to improve the Internet, you have no chance of even being seriously considered. > What precedent would tor/gnu/zkey/etc set? Precedent? And .local, what was it? > Does IETF even have any say in such matters? Isn't this up to IANA or > ICANN? What about trademarks? What about lawsuits by Gnu Inc or Onion > Corp who want their gTLD? RFC 6761 "Hence, the act of defining such a special name creates a higher-level protocol rule, above ICANN's management of allocable names on the public Internet." So basically, RFC 6761 says that IETF has the right to create TLD at will. > Other questions I would have is why aren't these people using a > different class from IN? You want to resurrect UIT's Net4d long-dead project? Sorry to be blunt, but this is a bad idea, impossible to deploy. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
