On 5/15/15 8:48 AM, str4d wrote: > Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote: >> Hi, >
<snip> >> I believe that the grothoff and appelbaum drafts are the first >> cases of testing the mechanism for the use of the special names >> registry. I also assume that the registry was created to be used >> for more than its initial propulation with things like .local and >> .invalid. .local is really the first (poster child) case. these proposals are really the second. >> Additionally, I agree with some members of the DNSOP community >> that names matter. "my-product.invalid" is not a good way to start >> a venture. Should .alt be available "my-product.alt" is far >> preferrable as confirmed by a member of the I2P community both at >> the Interim meeting and in later mailing list communication >> (str4d). we shouldn't be in the business of setting up incentives for a behavior we want to encourage by making them look like penalties. > You are right in saying that .TLD.alt is preferable to .TLD.invalid > from a user's perspective. But that does not automatically imply that > .TLD.alt is preferable to .TLD. agree. I would expect that an future allocations of the form .tld would account for the availability of alternative methods. > What I said was, if I were writing a new I2P-like application > requiring a non-DNS .TLD _after_ .alt had been accepted and publicized > as the accepted way of establishing non-DNS domain structures, then I > would use .TLD.alt instead of .TLD, because it would be far less > hassle (to get it reserved, as I expect having .alt would enable IETF > to more easily evaluate and accept reservations under it) for not much > additional work educating users. I would of course _prefer_ to use > .TLD on its own, but as an app developer I would take the path of > least resistance. Right now, that is to register .TLD under RFC 6761. > If .alt is accepted, it would be that. > >> Indeed, that person claims that .alt would have been used if it >> was both available and understood. > > I said that I2P would _probably_ have used it, had .alt existed at the > time as the accepted way of establishing non-DNS domain structures. > However, I want to ensure that these two points are abundantly clear: > > * I am not one of the original developers of I2P. I was not involved > with I2P until years after .i2p had already been chosen and > established, so I cannot speak for what they would actually have done. > > * Even if .alt does become available, I2P will not be transitioning to > it. (This has already been thoroughly discussed previously on this ML > around the P2PNames draft in general, and the .onion and .i2p TLDs in > particular.) The question of what to do about the existing practice seems orthogional to the question of what to do about future ones. <snip> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
