+1. -- John Levine wrote: >> 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.
i disagree. the ietf's stated purpose is to ensure interoperability. for many years we all treated that as "make sure everybody agrees as to the meaning of what's on the wire." the .ALT (or .EXTERNAL or whatever) specification will not change what's on the wire, but its purpose is still to ensure interoperability. simply put, we want any internet-capable device to have the same experience when using non-internet naming. that's why i'm describing it as a change to the dns presentation level. if something is reachable only via some non-internet naming system, it should still be possible to publish a link to it on the web, which like many links will only work if you're inside some perimeter and have installed some kind of non-internet software, but there will still be interoperability among all those who are inside that kind of perimeter and/or have installed that kind of software. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
