Paul Wouters wrote on 2022-08-15 13:22:
Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-15 11:49:
...
So, from my authors hat, I would appreciate FCFS; ideally also existing
RFC/Other Specification + Implementation(s) for a registration in the
registry.
"existing RFC" means all alternative name resolutions have to flow
through either the IETF or ISE. That is not something the IETF would
want to take on I think.
i think otherwise. the IETF exists for the purpose of supporting this
kind of thing. IANA has to have a higher power to tell it about code
point assignments. what we don't want, most of all, is to introduce a
new such authority.
david's read of the timeline is that ICANN has responsibility for the
whole domain style naming space, and by that interpretation the .ALT
question would be theirs to grapple. i disagree for many reasons which i
fear will have to be discussed before this is over, but, not today.
"Other specification" would likely lead to many copy & paste drafts
based on the first draft that is used to get an entry in .alt, with
only the name changed.
i think we should be fine with that; we're enabling it not managing it.
Meanwhile, IANA will have to host 60M entries in the .alt registry.
that would be a success disaster, and self limiting. to get traction, a
new non-tcp/53 non-udp/53 would have to publish plugins for a lot of
browsers and get uptake by libcurl and other places. that won't happen
60M times. in fact long before the natural limits of deployment kicked
in, the natural limit of namespace pollution would remove the incentive.
in any case the worst case if we do a carve out is a lot better than the
worst case if we don't, so the details beyond that aren't important.
I guess we could prevent draft--alt-name-cocacola if we consult the
Trademark Clearing House, but maybe this is a clear signal that we
are turning the IETF into ICANN and it is time to take a step^Wleap
back.
The IETF cannot bear the burden of managing or policing a non-IETF
namespace war, even handling a FCFS registry will take too many
resources.
i had this exact conversation with bob moskowitz some decades ago and he
considered trademarks to be a full-tree issue. i then created host names
for a computer lab which duplicated each and every one of his employer's
trademarks (which were i think automobile names) and invited a lawsuit.
coca-cola.alt is not different in its trademark relevance from
coca-cola.example.com or coca-cola.gns.alt. we're not going to
differentiate, and i predict we're not going to let it stop us any more
than we would or could prohibit an IPv6 address ending in ::c0ca:c01a.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
