Hi, The editors hold the token on text for this, but it seems to me that the discussion has started going in circles.
A number of arguments have been made, and in some cases repeated. Let’s assume the editors have heard them and try to restrict followups to new observations, questions, or arguments. > On Feb 10, 2017, at 1:25 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> This is part of why I don't want to extend alt this way, and the more >> I think about it the less desirable it seems to me. We have a >> particular problem: non-DNS-protocol switching for applications that >> want to use a DNS-compatible domain name slot (see RFC 5890). > > Agreed. Say that you can do anything you want with .ALT (duh) but you > SHOULD NOT resolve .ALT names via the DNS protocol because of the > DNSSEC problems. To minimize leakage, we can use the tools we already > have: qname minimization, local mirrors of the root, and special > casing in DNS caches as many now do for .onion. This sounds reasonable to me. Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
