On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
> My memory is that only after that
> did we start thinking of a sort of 1918-style part of the DNS as
> well. That may have been a mistake, since as this discussion is
> showing the properties of an in-protocol, in-DNS namespace without
> delegations are somewhat different to alternative-protocol uses that
> do not rely on the DNS at all.
>
>
> I think that we've seen a number of questions go by that lead to the
> conclusion that it makes sense to have two hierarchies: one for experimental
> non-DNS queries, and one for locally served zones.
Yes.
> I don't know if we
> _need_ the .LSZ (or whatever) SUTLDN, but if we need to be able to have a
> special-use top-level domain name that has an un-signed delegation, it
> probably ought to be different than the SUTLDN that is used for non-DNS
> stuff, so that both names can have the appropriate configuration in the root
> zone.
.alt was intended only for names *outside* the DNS - an alternate name
resolution system (like .onion). It was never intended for use in an
alternate/internal DNS namespace. If needed, we can clarify this in
the draft.
I fully understand the desire for names which are resolved using the
DNS, but are not rooted in / connected to the DNS root -- I think that
something like this would be really useful (I've got a bunch of
use-cases), but it seems like a completely different kettle of fish.
I'd encourage someone to write a document like this -- I started
writing a such document[0] in July 2015 to reserve a name (.internal)
specifically for this, but only got as far as the title and abstract
before getting sidetracked. :-P
So, in my opinion there should not be any sort of delegation for .alt.
A new (short) draft reserving .internal (or whatever) specifically for
DNS names not rooted in / connected to the IANA tree could be written,
and that can ask for a delegation.
W
[0]
<title abbrev="template">Reservation of .internal as a Special Use
Name.</title
...
<abstract>
<t>This document reserves the string "internal" for use as an internal
DNS </t>
<t>[ Ed note: Text inside square brackets ([]) is additional background
information, answers to freqently asked questions, general musings, etc.
They will be removed before publication.]</t>
<t>[ This document is being collaborated on in Github at:
https://github.com/__URL__. The most recent version of the document,
open issues, etc should all be available here. The authors (gratefully)
acept pull requests ]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
