On Dec 14, 2022, at 10:27 AM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Dec 14, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: >> If these principles apply, why is the IETF bothering with .alt at all? > > My impression has been the primary intent is to ensure .ALT is not allocated > for DNS use
That is explicitly stated many places in the document. > and secondarily, to try to curtail future discussions of this topic. Curtail, but not prevent. That is, if the draft becomes an RFC and the label is permanently excluded from the global DNS root zone, if someone says "I want a new TLD that will be permanently excluded from the global root zone", an easy response is "show us why you cannot have an SLD under a name that is already permanently excluded from the global root zone". No one here has come up with a good answer to that question, so that such discussions could be reduced to one round trip (well, with possible retransmissions...). > FWIW, if my impression is accurate, I’m confident the former will be > successful (I’m sure the next round of gTLDs will disallow any strings the > IETF comes up with, among others) IANA already informs the parts of ICANN that allocates new TLDs of all TLDs in the SUDN registry, so your confidence is warranted. > but am less confident about the latter. I am more confident in the latter because the IETF will have a concrete answer written in a standard instead of "well, let's start from first principles again". --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
