Stephane, > The main reason why I say so is that we already have RFC 6761 and it > exists precisely to register special names.
Well, yes, albeit in the root, thereby generating useless traffic to the root resulting in increased latency, additional network traffic, potential privacy violation, and creating a potential conflict between the IETF and the entity to which the IETF delegated policy for registering TLDs. > 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. The reason I see is to try to limit the damage caused by 6761. > * 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). Do you believe there will be no further requests for TLDs based on 6761? > * 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. In my view, a "DNS name" is the subset of "domain names" that can be looked up via the DNS. > * the draft uses terms like "pseudo-TLD" which are uselessy > deprecative. I didn't take "pseudo-" as deprecative, but I suppose it could be viewed that way. > * .ALT claims to be registered under the RFC 6761 framework but the > draft ignores the requirments of its section 5. Fair enough. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
