On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:36:39PM +0800, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote a message of 20 lines which said:
> Warren and I have prepared draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04. We'd > appreciate feedback. If there isn't any, maybe that's a sign that > we could just publish it and thereby create a special TLD in which > people could set up their various special use special names? This is a bad idea and should be dropped completely. The main reason why I say so is that we already have RFC 6761 and it exists precisely to register special names. I was not a big fan of this RFC (that's an understatement) but, now that it exists, I see no reason to obsolete it after only two years of existence and only one TLD, an Apple's one, registered. Worse, draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04 misrepresents RFC 6761 by saying things like "Special Use TLDs which should only be used in exceptional circumstances" while it is never written in RFC 6761. Other reasons: * existing code will not be modified and the names in draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names will have to be considered anyway. So, .ALT adds work for dnsop / the IESG without addressing the existing requests (.ONION, .GNU, .IP2P, etc). * the draft is confused in terminology between "domain name" and "DNS name". There is no such thing as a "DNS name". Domain names can be looked up in the DNS but they are used in many different contexts and can be resolved by several protocols. If someone sets up a RDAP server for Namecoin, names in .BIT or .COM will use the same protocol for information retrieval. * the draft uses terms like "pseudo-TLD" which are uselessy deprecative. * .ALT claims to be registered under the RFC 6761 framework but the draft ignores the requirments of its section 5. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
