On 12 Sep 2016, at 18:38, George Michaelson wrote:
If you wish to make it attractive, the meeting point is probably not-dns
Agree.
because alt is .. too desireable by others with different intent, in the real world.
It is also too unclear even to people who think it means "alternative": this name is an alternative to what? That's the same problem that the label had in the Usenet days.
(I didn't mean >not-dns<)
Good, I had the same concern that Warren did.
the advantage of the unicode choice, was purely that it avoided semantic meaning and was unlikely to be chosen. But I did also hope, that it would terminate in DNS of older code. A useful side-effect.
Not at all: it would just cause people who might get value from the new name not to use it. I agree with Warren: we want this name to feel like a first-class label.
--Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
