On 8/17/22 10:20, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 17, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Timothy Mcsweeney <t...@dropnumber.com> wrote:
Are you proposing dot Alt, or are you proposing dot Alt dot.?
Please see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/>, the
draft in question. It has already gone through WG Last Call, but has been held there
for possible revision.
Indeed the document is unclear about whether the ALT namespace has a final
empty label or not. As Tim points out:
Introduction:
This document reserves the label "ALT" (short
for "Alternative") as a Special Use Domain ([RFC6761]). This label
is intended to be used as the final (rightmost) label to signify that
the name is not rooted in the DNS, and that it should not be resolved
using the DNS protocol.
That sounds like no empty label. And it sounds very consistent with a non-DNS
approach. Perhaps the empty label is a DNS specialty that other namespaces
don't share.
Section 4.1:
This section is to satisfy the requirement in Section 5 of RFC6761.
The string ".alt." (and names ending with the string .alt) are
special in the following ways:
That sounds like there is an empty label. The ALT namespace would then be a
carve-out of the DNS namespace.
Which way is it?
I think it's important to clarify that (here and in the document). (The answer may be
implicit in other documents that define "domain names", but regardless, we
should make sure there are no misunderstandings about what exactly the draft specifies.)
Best,
Peter
--
https://desec.io/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
