On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: > 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.
The thing that got .onion to the IETF is that they needed to be "official". (So that they could get certificates for .onion names.) Until they get an RFC 6761 registration, they're in a grey zone of being neither officially DNS names nor officially not DNS names. ISTM that the benefit of .alt is that it creates a clearly-not-normal-DNS zone. We would have to check with the CAs, but I think that that would do a lot to prevent issues like what .onion ran into. My hope would be that that benefit would make it appealing enough for at least some of these other pseudo-TLDs to tolerate the switching cost. --Richard > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
