> On 22. Aug 2022, at 19:07, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> I would prefer that they choose whatever is best for their own >> non-DNS user community, which might still be ASCII. > > Since this came up earlier in the thread(s), I would also strongly advise > that users of .alt do not stray from the DNS standard of > > - 255-octet maximum name length > - 63-octet maximum label length > - separated by period/dots (in presentation format) > - an empty root label. > > To do otherwise might cause havoc with nsswitch mechanisms that expect to be > given "domain-style names".
I do not see why names under .alt must be compliant standard DNS names for any reason. In fact, the whole problem and the reason why we are here is because this may be the case "coincidentally". If the name system protocol wants to be backwards-compatible then it must define its protocol as such. Then it will "just work". Otherwise it will not, and that is fine as well? BR > > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
