It seems to me to be a situation similar to that with MIME types - there is value in having a well understood part of the namespace for unregistered experimentation on an FCFS basis.
David > On 19 Jul 2015, at 3:08 am, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Sure, we all want that, but an IANA registry that only lets one entity > register each name would be counterproductive, because names have semantic > meaning. Nobody cares whether they get rrtype number or port number 42103 or > 42104. But if two people show up with something that uses sex.alt, and IANA > tries to tell one of them to use sey.alt instead, fat chance. > > A simple FCFS will be full of squatters, not actually doing anything with the > names, but hoping, probably wrongly, that the name will be valuable some day. > (See the first couple of thousand registrations in any of ICANN's new TLDs > for an example of this.) Furthermore, let's say someone's squatting on > sex.alt, someone else builds a P2P* service, looks around, sees that nobody's > actually using sex.alt, so he calls his sex.alt. Now the registry is > actively wrong. > > If we try to make rules about hoops one has to jump through to register a > *.alt service, we're back exactly where we are now with .onion. People will > ignore them until their critical mass becomes a fait accompli, so why bother. > If two people show up about the same time with something called sex.alt, how > are we supposed to decide who wins? We get to have our own IETF-lite version > of the .africa fiasco currently happening at ICANN. And, of course, if we do > pick one, the other will still keep calling itself sex.alt and there's > nothing we can do about it. > > That's why I think that a FCFS non-exclusive registry could be useful so that > people who want to avoid collisions can find infor that lets them assess the > collision risk for their favorite names, and it doesn't matter whether it's > at IANA or somewhere else since it's just voluntary advice. Since we are not > the Domain Name Police, if people want to create services with names that > collide, they will do so. It'd be nuts to pretend otherwise. > > R's, > John > > * - Porn 2 Porn, of course > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
