On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > > > This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT > registry in order for .ALT to be able to address anything other than > experimental uses. > And I think this would actually be a good thing. > > If we created a registry for alt, how would alt not be just another > TLD with exactly the same status as any other domain name registry? > You can already register a name in the DNS registries and not turn it > on in the DNS. > > What you're suggesting is that the IETF run a parallel registry for > people who don't want to pay registrars and registries. I think it > would be unwise for the IETF to get into that business. > > Best regards, > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@anvilwalrusden.com I think the difference is that ".alt" names should not be leaked into DNS, but should be kept private. I assume that DNS registrations have a cost partly because of the infrastructure required if one chooses to publish them in DNS. Registrations under ".alt" would not have this overhead - they should never reach DNS. The whole purpose of a registry for ".alt" sub-domains is simply to avoid name collisions. -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
