> On Feb 3, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > To sharpen the question slightly…. > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:11 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> In message <1b8e640b-c38e-4b76-a73d-7178491a9...@fugue.com>, Ted Lemon >>> writes: >>>> >>>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> It appears to me that requesting an insecure delegation is the right >>>>>> thing to do, as a "technical use". We have, so far, been very careful in >>>>>> what we ask for. If ICANN does not agree, then we can discuss other >>>>>> options. >>>>> >>>>> I agree. >>>> >>>> I'm confused. The .ALT TLD is expected to be used for non-DNS name >>>> lookups. So isn't a secure denial of existence exactly what we want for >>>> .ALT? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> What is the utility in having an un-signed delegation? >>> >>> Alt can be used for whatever purpose that the user wants to use it >>> for including names served using the DNS protocol. >> >> The draft restricts use of .alt as follows: >> >> This label is intended to be used as >> the final (rightmost) label to signify that the name is not rooted in >> the DNS, and that normal registration and lookup rules do not apply. >> >> ...which would lead me to believe .alt would not be used for names served >> using the DNS protocol. >> >> However, the phrase "not rooted in the DNS" might need some clarification. >> >> In particular, would ".homenet.alt" be OK, as it is a locally-served zone, >> not a subdomain of the root zone? > > As a slightly broader question, what does the WG want .ALT to do?
Here's a starting point: The .alt subdomain is to be used for names that are not expected to be resolved with the DNS protocol, and names that are expected to be resolved with the DNS protocol through a context other than the root zone (e.g., locally served zones). > > More specifically, perhaps, what problems discussed in > draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02.txt do we want it to solve? Roughly speaking, and open for debate: Reduces potential conflict between IETF and ICANN assignment of names in the Domain Namespace root. Obviates the need for (most?) interpretations of "technical use". Addresses some (but not all) of the reasons an entity might commandeer a domain name. Mitigates the problem that newly utilized special use names are assumed to use DNS for resolution by most existing software. Helps separate the regions of the Domain Namespace over which IETF and ICANN have authority. Allows for ad hoc assignment of special use names. This list might change depending on: * whether IETF is still allowed to declare names in the Domain Namespace root for "technical use" * there is a registry (and associated process) for names in the .alt subdomain For example, how do we accommodate both "sitenet.alt." as designated by an Internet Standard and "mynewresolver.alt" as used in a local, experimental naming system? - Ralph > > The WG can agree to change the current text, but I think the WG needs to > agree on the purpose of ALT, as that seems likely to make it easier to decide > what behavior we want to specify for it and, in turn, how it should be > implemented. > > > Suzanne > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
