In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson, I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the IAB statement.
My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three possibilities for a special name. The first is, a special but needs DNS resolution. This is one case the IAB says, "register it and put it in DNS under arpa". (I don't think that is controversial at all, and a wise recommendation.) The second is, a Very Special, but does not belong in DNS. (IAB second option.) The third is, a Not Very Special, and not in DNS. Not registered, FCFS. Not covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO not conflicting with the IAB statement. Very Special: It gets its entry in the registry in order to establish its uniqueness, but isn't in DNS, so no entry under arpa. This avoids the possibility of multiple mechanisms for interception fighting with each other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and also in-scope for the IAB statement. Not Very Special: whoever wants the name, is reasonably sure it won't be exposed outside of a closed environment (e.g. a single application), and doesn't want or need to go through the 6761 process to get the name registered. Not Very Special is basically 6761 without the registry, in a first-come, first-served, no guarantees kind of way. The "onion" thing showed the need for some way of avoiding TLDs, avoiding conflicting names, and avoiding heavy process, IMHO. And I think "alt" is the right answer. Also IMHO, making it "alt.arpa" would be very confusing; I think any time someone sees "arpa" as the TLD, they should believe it exists in the DNS. Having "alt" be the parent name here, and not be in the DNS, keeps things clear even to non-DNS folks. And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that kind-of are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be something where "alt.arpa" would make sense. But given the relative ease in adding things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating non-registered FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa. Brian
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
