On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:09 PM, Martin Schanzenbach < mschanzenb...@posteo.de> wrote:
> On 23. Aug 2022, at 16:47, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:29 AM, Peter Thomassen <pe...@desec.io> wrote: > On 8/23/22 07:02, Ray Bellis wrote: > > There will be a very long tail of systems out there that do not know about > ".alt". > > How would those systems respond when passed a domain-style name that does > not meet domain-style syntax rules (specifically those for total length and > label lengths) ? > > Designers of that other non-DNS protocol will have to consider all kinds > of interoperability issues, including what kind of strings are permissible > under their branch of .alt, and what consequences would arise from that. > > IMO, that is within the realm of the specification of that other non-DNS > protocol, just like any other protocol consideration that occurs when > evolving a specification while implementing it; we DNS people don't have to > mandate fences for the general case. > > Mandate no, but I do think that we should "helpfully suggest". > > There are many ways to refer to a host — for example, I recently had to > ask someone to swap a drive in a server for me, and I resolved the identity > with: "it's the Dell server towards the bottom of the rack near the door." > Clearly this is a pathological case, but putting ".alt" at the end of that > doesn't really help :-). > > Much of the reason for needing something like .alt is that the context > isn't explicit, and so we expect that these names will be used in places > that generally expect something like a "DNS name". I think that some text > suggesting that for interoperability with existing applications (which may > do some sort of checks or processing on the user input) people may want to > constrain themselves to LDH / DNS syntax. There are no protocol police, and > so we cannot actually enforce this even if we wanted to — I can technically > put <bunny with big teeth emoji><somewhat bedraggled oxen emoji><sort of > weird looking pyramid thingie emoji>.kumari.net into my zonefile, and > there is nothing you can to do stop me… <mwahahaha, the power!!!> — but it > sure won't work well… > > So, I'd think something like: "For compatibility with existing > applications and to maximize interoperability, it is recommended that names > that end in .alt follow DNS name syntax." (or something similar but better > worded). > > Who is this recommendation supposed to be for? The user > "registering/creating" a name or the protocol? I think that the > specification of the protocol may recommend to users that they should > carefully consider the name chosen when it is supposed to be used with > ".alt". > What I put in my pull request is: "To maximize compatiblity with existing applications, it is suggested that non-DNS protocols using names that end in .alt follow DNS name syntax." - it is just a suggestion, there is no "force" behind it... But my question would still be: Should the registry pose limitations, then, > on the 2LD? Because you cannot really have the one without the other? > I don't think that it can (or should). This is just a suggestion… I had considered wording it as "it is recommended that…", but that sounded stronger and that people might confuse it with "RECOMMENDED". W > BR > Martin > > W > > Best, > Peter > > -- > https://desec.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
