isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case.
G On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400, > Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote > a message of 92 lines which said: > >> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: >> >> "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/> > > I've read -08 and I believe I understand this draft. I'm not convinced > it's useful (most users of alternative resolution systems won't use it > and, anyway, I'm not even sure it will be added in the Special-Use > registry, which was wrongly frozen by the IESG) but I don't see big > issues with the draft, it seems to me it correctly describes the new > TLD. > > Editorial : > > Section 1: > > "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"? > > Section 5 : > > After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference to > RFC 7626? > > Normative references: > > Why is RFC 6303 a normative reference? It is no longer used. > > Why is RFC 7686 a normative reference? It is just an example. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
