On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:15:54PM -0400,
Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> We were requested to hold off on this document until the .onion
> document had completed it's process. As this has now been approved,
> and lies with the RFC Editor, we are requesting WGLC of
> draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld ("The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain")
I made strong objections in
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qD0bvy2UVXno92h5IPLOBfdUs6o>
Some were addressed but not all. I'm still unhappy with:
* sloppy terminology between "domain name" and "DNS name". "DNS name"
does not seem to be defined, sometimes it is synonymous of domain
name, sometimes it is not. This leads to unfortunate sentences such as
"Names that look like DNS names" as if 7j3ncmar4jm2r3e7.onion was
maliciously trying to look like a DNS name. 7j3ncmar4jm2r3e7.onion is
a domain name (sequence of labels, the most general being at the end,
separated by dots in the text form). (Speaking of that,
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology should be mentioned, not just the old
RFC 1034.)
* questionable terms like "pseudo-TLD" (.onion is not more pseudo than
.xxx or .pizza)
Also, there is a clear lack of rationale such as the sentence "This
document provides a solution that may be more appropriate than
[RFC6761] in many cases." which does not say why it would be "more
appropriate" and in which cases.
I do not understand the sentence "The authors understand that there is
much politics surrounding the delegation of a new TLD and thank the
ICANN liaison in advance." Since this document does not ask for a
delegation in the USG/ICANN root, which is it mentioned?
Editorial: debuggung whould be debugging
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
