Hi, I am interested by the .a to .z, .alt and .external discussion.
The goal here from the non-DNS people seems to be to have DNS type labels (thus URI's) which are known to the recursive and authoritative resolvers to be outside of DNS. If it is known that .a to .z are such; why where they not used? Perhaps they should be publicized a little more. However, I far prefer the single declaration of a TLD for use by these non-DNS systems. Additionally, we a challenge with the certificate issuance for .onion, and as I have commented, it is a very large install base, and asking them to change their TLD with little time in which to act seems churlish. Their application (Tor), and those of the GNUnet etc. are entirely within the remit of 6761. So, I propose are few things: 1. accept that the submitted proposals are fine and approve them (.onion, .gnu .zkey etc). 2. approve .alt (or whatever is decided) 3. close 6761 saying that all future things must use whatever is decided in 2. Thus, 6761 is honored for what is was, a future path is created, and dnsop dont have to do this again and again. Hugo Connery ________________________________________ From: DNSOP [dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of David Conrad [d...@virtualized.org] Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 13:30 To: Paul Vixie Cc: dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard Paul, On Jul 17, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > yes, but not with .ALT, which is a politically desirable gTLD name, and > which allows the connotation of "alternate DNS". i suggested .EXTERNAL > because nobody will ever want it as a gTLD and because its connotation > is unambiguously "not DNS". Given many of the names that were applied for, I would be quite hesitant to make assertions about what people would or would not want (or what would or would not be politically desirable) for new gTLDs in future rounds. After all, we were talking about .FOO in this thread... > seriously, i wouldn't object to warren's draft if the string he chose > hadn't been .ALT. I suspect any name chosen would have proponents and opponents based on their own assumptions and biases. Looking at the technical requirements, we'd probably want a string that would be unlikely ever to be requested and which wouldn't be significant/controversial to any particular subset of the community. A quarter-baked idea: perhaps instead of a single label that (may or may not) has significance of English, we could go with up to 26 'non-DNS' labels, i.e., .A ... .Z? Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
