On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:14 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
> 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)? I really like .alt -- it makes it clear that this is an alternate namespace type thing, mirrors the usenet alt convention, etc. .p2p seems less descriptive, and not all alternate things are peer to peer. Whatever the case, .<new label> could be delegated to AS112 -- if you don't have the special source that uses the alternate namespace this will at least cut down on the excess "junk" queries hitting the root. W > > Regards, > -drc > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Eagles soar but a weasel will never get sucked into a jet engine _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
