In your letter dated 29 Mar 2016 17:51:54 -0400 you wrote: >> IETF is about protocols, not names. So I can see room for a special >> purpose domain like .alt, but why would you open that for people >> who can't be bothered to create a sensible protocol. > >So they don't pollute the rest of the DNS namespace with their silly >designs, of course. Once again, we are not the Network Police, and we >cannot keep people from doing whatever they want, even if we think it's >dumb. The best we can do here is try to channel the damage, and tell >people that if they use .alt, we promise they'll never collide with a >domain allocated by ICANN.
I disagree that this a problem worth solving. The internet at large was not bothered by .onion. It was the tor project that found the need to have their use ratified. >You might want to re-read the .alt draft. What's even worse, this draft would not have helped the .onion case at all. >Also, it seems utterly implausible to ask ICANN to do protocol >management. In 100% of the domains they've delegated so far, it's plain >old RFC 1034/1035 DNS. So, why can't they learn new tricks? ICANN is doing names, let them do names. They can always create a procedure that consults the IETF on protocol issues. You should not have two organisations trying to manage a single name space. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
