>I think reserving a DNS-like namespace anchor of ALT is unnecessary; as >I mentioned in my comments about the ONION draft, you have a choice of >anywhere in the namespace to place that anchor, and there are an >enormous number existing places in the DNS where you can reserve a name >without denting root zone maintenance processes or existing DNS >namespace policy.
As a matter of arithmetic, you are of course correct. But in practice, some names are much more equal than others and .onion is a lot more mnemonic than .alliumcepa or .vtdsknmsknd. I doubt whether the people who started using .corp and .mail and .home in their local software a decade ago imagined that it would ever become a policy issue. >If DNAME *is* to be used, the authors might make quiet enquiries as to >how much trouble this would cause the people involved in root zone >maintenance, ... There are TLDs whose zone file contains only a DNAME (other than the mandatory stuff) so a possible band-aid would be to do that, using the delegation of .arpa as a precedent for our ability to ask IANA to install NS records for us. But the more I think about DNAME, the worse idea it seems to me. In particular, since DNAME does not redirect its own name, that would mean that even though alt.<anything> would not exist in the DNS, plain alt. would exist, and that doesn't appear consistent with the goals of this draft. It's a problem that doesn't occur with existing uses of as112 since they're all subtrees of the .arpa namespace. R's, John PS: >I like the quiet nod to the era of Usenet where people primarily >exchanged text rather than 7-bit encoded MPEGs of mediocre network >television. Those were the days. Whadda ya mean "were"? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
