Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Chairs, Can we get some follow-up on this? Thanks, Eliot On 13.01.23 16:56, Suzanne Woolf wrote: Colleagues, This WGLC is closed,  with many thanks to everyone who commented. The chairs and editors are reviewing the comments and will summarize in the next few days. Suzanne, for the chai

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Colleagues, This WGLC is closed, with many thanks to everyone who commented. The chairs and editors are reviewing the comments and will summarize in the next few days. Suzanne, for the chairs From: Suzanne Woolf Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 3:26 PM To: "dnsop@ietf.org" Cc: "dnsop-ch

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

I support publication of this draft. Since it has no keywords in it, Section 1.1 should be deleted. Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com > > *From: *DNSOP on behalf of Suza

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

> On Dec 13, 2022, at 18:50, Wessels, Duane > wrote: > >  > I > I still think the requirements for library (stub) and caching resolver > behavior should be stronger. i.e. MUST NOT put .alt queries on the wire. > But this is probably a minority opinion. Earlier I had said “should use qu

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

I will reiterate some of my concerns with the draft: I find the format of section 3.2 to be very strange. As a paragraph it jumbles some items together. It should be a list format like the ones in RFCs 6761 and 7686. Section 3.2 does not say how applications that do not use .alt should behave

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Dear DNSOP, I support advancing the document in its current form. There's a broken sentence in Section 5: "Care must be taken to ensure that the mapping of thepseudo-TLD into its corresponding non-DNS name resolution system inorder to get whatever security is offered by that system." --> the

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hiya, This is good enough, so should proceed. In terms of substantive comments, I can only think of arguments that have already been thrashed out so won't raise any of 'em. A suggestion/nit which I'm fine to see ignored: the text in section 4 (Privacy Considerations) isn't that clear and might

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hi George, On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 08:02:19PM -0500, George Michaelson wrote: > The only reference to ICANN delegation process Why should there be any reference to any ICANN delegation process? The name is to be added to the special-use registry, taking it out of conteplation as a DNS name. > Se

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hi, Thanks for the review. On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 03:17:27PM -0500, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Editorial : > > Section 1: > > "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"? Yes. > > Section 5 : > > After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference to

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

In article you write: >isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? > >Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed >without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case. Like Paul Hoffman, I read the it the opposite way. The draft says about as clearly as it can that fo

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question: > Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft > going to LC if that draft didn't say it? > > If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some s

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

I could take it either way. narrow doc is narrow purpose? don't ref it. doc is highly visible, will be (mis)interpreted as being relevant? disavow it (which implies ref it) doc is highly visible, problem next door? Seek guidance. -G On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Hi, >

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hi, On one specific point: > On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:02 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that > any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why > this draft is special, against that letter. You make a compelling a

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question: Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft going to LC if that draft didn't say it? If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some sense: in or not in a registry; passed or not passed into the DNS; de

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson, I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the IAB statement. My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three possibilities for a special name. The first is, a special but needs D

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 3 Apr 2017, at 18:02, George Michaelson wrote: > >> The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note] >> which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be >> addressed directly, not as editorial. > > > Th

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On 3 Apr 2017, at 18:02, George Michaelson wrote: The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note] which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be addressed directly, not as editorial. The note says why the ICANN delegation process is *not* used. As the

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note] which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be addressed directly, not as editorial. Secondly, The authors make a judgement call in this block that they feel requesting delegation is not required. I don't fee

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote: isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? No. Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case. Are you saying that because of: https://www.iab.org/documents/co

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case. G On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400, > Suzanne Woolf wrot

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400, Suzanne Woolf wrote a message of 92 lines which said: > This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: > > "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ >

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote: This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ Intended status: Proposed Standard Per the discussion in our interim meeting a couple of weeks ago, the e