Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the SECDIR review. ** Section 2. Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs are recommended to move under the .alt pseudo-TLD, but this is not a requirement. I don’t understand the basis of this recommendation. Projects and protocols using pseudo-TLDs (outside of https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved) are already not following published guidance. Why is there an expectation that this document can change behavior? Section 3.2. Item #3. Editorial. s/Writers of name resolution APIs/Creators of name resolution APIs/. Or “developers”, “implementers, or “designers” ** Section 3.2. Item #7 7. DNS registries/registrars for the global DNS will never register names in the .alt pseudo-TLD because .alt will not exist in the global DNS root. Items #4 – 6 on this list use RFC2119 language to make the expected behavior clear. This text seems to be written in an aspiration form describing what registries/registrars will do, without explicitly prohibiting them with normative language. Is there a reason for that? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
