On Feb 12, 2015, at 1:44 AM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > Technology wise, this is short, and simple and clear. Would we had this > before .onion eventuated, and dare I say it even .local from another time and > place. WIring a TLD to be used for alternate namespaces so that we can safely > anchor non-DNS names into the DNS and avoid repetitious stupidity is a good > plan.
I think that if .alt had existed when .local was defined, nothing would have been different. From a UI perspective, using an extra label to identify that a particular domain is special-use is worse, because it's more typing, and doesn't really make sense--which makes more sense: "myhost.local" or "myhost.local.alt"? So I think this work is worth doing, because there are probably cases where .alt will do just fine, but I don't think it gets rid of the problem of top-level special-use domains. The "SHOULD" recommendation in the document is the right level of applicability: "MUST" would be wrong, and I appreciate that the authors did not use it. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
