Hellekin, > *** Our next draft will certainly address this point.
Thanks. > If it makes sense to delegate a subtree and tell the implementors: > > "now, for all domains under the .alt DNS subtree, you MUST check what is > the correct assignment and resolution strategy for each domain, and you > MUST handle the domains accordingly.", then I guess it makes sense to > use .bit.alt, and then .cjdns.alt, and .fubar.alt, etc. as long as each > SUBDOMAIN will use a different strategy for handling names. That is the basis behind https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-03. > On the other hand, if we want to keep a sane base, we'd rather identify, > circumscribe and announce the various existing strategies, and hope that > future strategies that may or may not appear will have a solid > foundation for incorporating their innovative strategy into the global > name space. Our group chose the latter. There is a token at the end of a domain name that indicates it shall be handled differently than domain names without that token. Aside from the length, I'm afraid I don't see how having a "." in the string negatively impacts the solidly of a foundation, innovative or not. Some additional comments on http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-03.pdf: - 1. Overall: As with previous versions of this draft, I believe it should be broken up into separate drafts for each of the proposed 6761 special names registry entries. Tying all 6 names into a single draft is pointlessly complicating the discussions and it is likely some special use names may be more easily justified than others (e.g., .ONION) due to existing installed base, completeness of documentation, etc., and it would be a shame to delay that approval because of requests for other, unrelated, special use names. This document confuses the concepts of the domain name namespace with the DNS implementation of that namespace, making numerous assertions that they must have a particular string within the namespace because their particular application does not (necessarily) require the use of the DNS. This is a false dichotomy: the DNS implementation of the singular hierarchical domain name namespace does not preclude the use of any portion of that namespace outside of the DNS (for example, see nsswitch). I'm not sure if this is the right place to raise this, but I'm a bit confused: if DNS servers (caching/authoritative) are expected to respond with NXDOMAIN since "not doing so can put users’ privacy at risk", doesn't this set users of pTLDs up for privacy violations by bad guys running a DNS server? - Introduction: "However, the hierarchical nature of DNS makes it unsuitable for various P2P Name Systems." As mentioned above, the fact that a P2P name does not require the DNS hierarchy does not mean it is unsuitable to be placed within that hierarchical namespace that the DNS implements. In fact, one can argue (as dnsop-alt-tld does) that placing the special use name within a sub-tree of the namespace facilitates interoperability of DNS and non-DNS domain names utilizing a single rooted namespace. - 2. Applicability "pTLDs cannot be allocated administratively" Perhaps you mean "Names within pTLDs cannot be allocated administratively"? "pTLDs do not depend on the DNS tree hierarchy for their resolution" As above. "However the default hierarchical DNS response to any request to any pTLD MUST be NXDOMAIN." If your applications depend on getting back an NXDOMAIN, you're going to have a bit of trouble with DNS redirection. More to the point, if your applications require an NXDOMAIN, it suggests you _ARE_ using the DNS which implies RFC 6761 does not apply. It also suggests your applications will be flooding the root with queries for non-resolvable names which, while all the rage these days, is a bit anti-social. 'The word "peer" is used in the meaning of a individual system on the network. Thus, "local peer" means the localhost.' I would've thought "local peer" would mean a system within the same network topological level, not on the same machine (implied by localhost). But maybe that's just me. "A pTLD is mentioned in capitals, and within double quotes to mark the difference with a regular DNS gTLD." Presumably you mean "TLD" not "gTLD" as "gTLD" is a specific type of top-level domain (generic as opposed to country code (ccTLD)). Hope this helps. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
