On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:53 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> 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. > > I think the key difference would be that it would accept any number of > entries for the same string, and would have a pointer to the place > where you can download the code that implements it. If you use > foo.alt and I use foo.alt, well, that's our problem. There is also no > reason to have only one such registry, or why any organization with a > name starting with "I" would run any of them.
I think that such a list / resource would be a fine idea, but I think that: A: it would be good to avoid calling it a "registry" (that term has specific meaning within the DNS world), and B: it would also be good if someone (or someones) other than the IETF ran them. This could be a person, like John for exmaple[0], or just something like a wikipedia page.... Some of my reason for writing the .alt draft was because I get more than enough ICANN politics at ICANN meetings -- I *so* don't want special use names to become an attractive niusence and have legal / trademark fights when someone launches an alternate name resolution system for finding drugs and calls it 'coke.alt'. Having a place where I could go figure out what piece of software I need to install to resolve http://0xdeadbeef.kitten.alt would be really useful (even if the resource said that this could be any of 3 different alternate resolution methods - if it looks like a bunch of hex is is probably KittenNet (install KittenRes0.23.tgz), if the string is mainly badly spelt "words" it's likely LoLCat, try install ICanHazNames from http://example.net :-)). > > As I mentioned before, given that the whole point of .alt is that > people are implementing things that look like DNS names but are > resolved in some other way, the winner of any such conflict is the one > with widely used running code. Yah. If I'm launching a new namespace that resolves based upon <something>, I have an incentive to choose a string that isn't already being used by some other large, well known project, in the same way that it would be silly for me to write a new UNIX program that does something like cowsay (but with kittens) and call it 'cat'. W > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
