Stephane, On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:44 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > It seems a criticism of RFC 6761, not of the current registration proposal.
Yes and no. Yes, I think 6761 is broken in parts (somehow I missed discussion of the draft), however the issue I'm worried about is the proliferation of the pseudo-domains and the confusion/noise I'm worried they'll cause. >> Ignoring that, other than aesthetics, what is the downside of >> <p2p>.alt or <p2p>.not-dns or <p2p>.arpa again? > > My main concern will be that it won't be easier or faster to get a > <p2p>.arpa and we'll see exactly the same discussions. On the plus side, I suspect there would be less of an assumption that <p2p>.arpa is a regular domain name. On the minus side, management of .ARPA is a part of the IANA functions contract which implies changes will require US DoC NTIA approval, so I'd agree that there is a potential for delays and ... non-technical discussion. But how about .alt or .not-dns (or as has been suggested .p2p)? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
