Hi George, On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 08:02:19PM -0500, George Michaelson wrote: > The only reference to ICANN delegation process
Why should there be any reference to any ICANN delegation process? The name is to be added to the special-use registry, taking it out of conteplation as a DNS name. > 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. We understood the WG to have decided, in my view correctly, that this name was exclusively for use outside the DNS. Section 3 makes that perfectly clear, I think: This document reserves the ALT label, using the [RFC6761] process, for use as an unmanaged pseudo-TLD namespace. The ALT label MAY be used in any domain name as a pseudo-TLD to signify that this is an alternative (non-DNS) namespace, and should not be looked up in a DNS context. > Thirdly the draft contains no language which actually explains why a > TLD is required The simple reason is to save octets, since these names need to fit in DNS protocol slots and therefore are subject to the 255 octet limit. We did remove that discussion somewhere along the line; I'm prepared to add it back if you like. Certainly the name could go under arpa, but when we discussed it before the conclusion was that it took too many octets that way. > Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that > any more' I understand the IAB note to be about the case where the name is intended for use with the DNS, so I don't think it is relevant to this use case. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
