On 07/17/2015 01:17 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
I personally have no position whether we shut the door before or after .ONION;
there is already a number of names in this category so if .onion was the first
I would strongly oppose its adoption, but since it's not, it doesn't care for
the scale problem whether .onion gets the last bite of this or not.
Considering .ONION already resolved, do you still see issues preventing
consensus ?
I think the best argument in favor of forbidding the allocation of
further special-use TLDs is that each such TLD will by default be
handled by software that doesn't know about it by sending a query.
Whereas if we have a single well-known exit, and the default behavior
for names under that exit is that the local resolver says "no such
host," and any caching resolver on the way to the root returns NXDOMAIN,
then that's a big win.
So I think that this argument could potentially gain consensus. I just
think that trying to do it in the same document as the .ALT document is
a bad idea, because .ALT can gain consensus whether people agree with
the other argument or not.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
