Eliot Lear wrote on 2022-08-15 07:41:
...
On 15.08.22 16:11, David Conrad wrote:
...
We have no idea whether GNS will take off in popularity or fade away
into non-existence. Given the way "configuration is forever”, any
partitioning of the namespace will be a feature for the foreseeable
future.
agreed, tails are long. that's why my analysis included guesses at the
best and worst possible impact of reserving part of the domain style
namespace for non-udp/53 non-tcp/53 purposes. given other code point
reservations present in the udp/53 tcp/53 world, this one can at worst
be harmless to the things IETF is responsible for evolving, and could be
beneficial to things the IETF is not responsible for evolving. so, QED?
I agree. We shouldn't bet the Internet name space on something
failing. 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. That will help reduce leakage.
+1. noting, there should be a registry of second level domain style
names, maintained by IANA, with an RFC for each one describing what
protocol (whether Internet or otherwise) is used for names in that
"sub-tree", and references to permalinks where the non-tcp/53 non-udp/53
system is further described. ("build roads not walls.")
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
