In message <1b8e640b-c38e-4b76-a73d-7178491a9...@fugue.com>, Ted Lemon writes: > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It appears to me that requesting an insecure delegation is the right > >> thing to do, as a "technical use". We have, so far, been very careful in > >> what we ask for. If ICANN does not agree, then we can discuss other > >> options. > > > > I agree. > > I'm confused. The .ALT TLD is expected to be used for non-DNS name > lookups.
The .ALT TLD is a sandbox to play in. It is a place where people can graft on alternative namespaces to play with. The names in it are not expected to be reachable in the DNS following normal DNS delegations from the root zone. This does NOT mean they are non-DNS names. I would expect all the names used in it to be syntactially valid DNS names (able to be converted to DNS wire format) but there is nothing we can do to enforce that. If they aren't convertable tools will fail to parse the names if they leak. They may be looked up using the DNS (e.g. like homenet). They may be looked up using other protocols (e.g. something like TOR). Its a place where people know that there is a risk of namespace collisions as there is no registry to prevent that. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
