>That was exactly the draft I was thinking about David. But it does not >address Paul's quest for one RFC per mapping, as >.alt has no registry. > >I do think the path forward is one cutout (my opinion only)
The absence of a registry is a feature. Or if there is an IANA registry, it should be FCFS and specifically allow multiple registrations for the same name. A few zillion messages ago I likened the usual TLD process to a gold rush in which people dashed in and squatted on whatever parcel looked most salable to someone else. The .alt (or whatever) non-TLD is more like homesteading, there's plenty of land, anyone can have some, but you can only keep it if you improve it. Since the cutout names exist only to the extent that application software handles them, the way you make a cutout name work is to write the software and get people to use it. Since there is no authority deciding who wins if names conflict, and no way to enforce such a decision even if someone tried to do so, it is in the interest of all of the homesteaders to pick names that won't conflict with anyone else, since otherwise the pain will land squarely on themselves. R's, John PS: No reason IANA has to run the registry. There can be a zillion unoffcial registries with the same homestead property, they only matter to the extent that people actually use them. Perhaps I'll put mine at alt.site, or dotalt.sucks. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
