On 7/1/15, 14:26, "Richard Barnes" <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: >We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making. Let's >engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting. For my >money, alt-TLD looks about right.
How does that help this: >>>>>>On 7/1/15, 1:47, st...@i2pmail.org wrote: >>>>>>> .onion and .i2p (and to my knowledge, the other proposed P2P-Names >>>>>>> TLDs too) have to conform to DNS rules in order to be usable in >>>>>>>legacy >>>>>>> applications that expect domain names. Having a alt-TLD is fine. But what if names are proposed, experimented and deployed outside the sphere of influence of the IETF and/or working group? Writing this as someone who is unfamiliar with "other proposed P2P-Names" efforts and whether they want to engage with "standards bodies" before deploying. I've gotten the impression that members of those efforts dislike standards processes - I may be wrong but that's the impression I've gotten from the discussion on this list.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
