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

Reply via email to