It appears that David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Eliot, > >On Aug 15, 2022, at 7:41 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: >> What I like about .alt (or whatever we end up calling it) is that it >> requires a single or small number of changes, not one change per name space. > >It creates a new namespace (*.alt), presumably one that is less contentious >than the root. The allocation policy for names in that sub-namespace is >undefined at this point.
In the discussions I've seen, the assumption is that the allocation policy is "free for all." It is definitely not FCFS or any kind of review. Maybe we would set up an IANA registry so people can let us know about their .alt projects, but it would specifically allow multiple entries with the same name. >Leakage occurs because underlying systems are unaware of special handling >requirements for a particular name. I believe the assumption is that all >resolvers (of all kinds) will be aware that they should not forward a name >ending with .alt to the DNS. This is a hard problem at Internet scale. As with >.local, I’ll be surprised if declaring .alt a SUDN will have much impact on >the amount of leakage. Yup. We also have very little basis on which to guess how much leakage there is or would be and how much it matters to whom. The amount of leakage to the root doesn't tell us a whole lot since I would expect a great deal of leakage to end up at places like 8.8.8.8 and various DoH providers which aren't likely to pass them up to root servers. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
