The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note] which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be addressed directly, not as editorial.
Secondly, The authors make a judgement call in this block that they feel requesting delegation is not required. I don't feel the consensus was that strong actually, but you know, I guess I could be wrong on that. Thirdly the draft contains no language which actually explains why a TLD is required, rather than a deterministic string which denotes 'not in the DNS' -It may be blindingly obvious to you it has to be a TLD, but given that the entry of DNS label-strings into the DNS is through software, and given that at some point, the simple un-parsed string 'something.alt' has to be presented, I would have expected an explanation why 'alt.arpa' as a pattern match in the DNS entry can't work as well as 'alt'. Bear in mind, that the argumentative text states .ONION is a comparator, so poses the problem back on (future) s/w authors that currently seek a TLD as a pattern match, and now have to code to ONION.ALT as a pattern match (the match on ALT implies parsing it off, to denote ONION as a non-DNS label, or embedding of ALT in the non-DNS namespace) so the dots-parsing problem exists for the s/w owners *come what may* Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why this draft is special, against that letter. You make a compelling and simple case: because its specifically NOT-DNS, not public DNS, its not relevant. Ok, then say so. 'we didn't say so because it wasn't relevant' feels pretty weak to me. I can do this as a nit in the GIT if you prefer. -G On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote: > >> isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? > > > No. > >> Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed >> without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case. > > > Are you saying that because of: > > https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names-in-the-arpa-domain/ > If so, I suspect you read it wrong. My reading is that the IAB is only > saying that names that are supposed to act like DNS names (that is, to exist > in the public DNS) need to be under .arpa. This draft explicitly is about > non-DNS contexts. > > --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
