For what it is worth, reviewed these documents today as an interested individual, and both seem to be OK from my (very limited DNS expertise) perspective.
Thanks for your work on this important space.
I did have a few mostly editorial comments though.
In sutld-ps, Section 3:
There are several different types of names in the root of the
Domain Namespace:
It would be beneficial to phrase this as a problem, as in what
issues the fact that there are different types causes.
Also in the same section:
The RFC 6761 process took more than ten years from
beginning to end
Was name allocation part really 10x more than the rest of
the protocol development? I was not paying much
attention to the topic at the time, but I thought there
also other issues. Also in fairness, mentioning the
.onion process might be a more representative
sample. (But I’m not disputing the point of this
problem, it is real. Just wondering if we can be more
accurate about the description.)
Finally, on -alt: For the record, and realising the
extensive discussion that the WG has had on
these topics, but I was a bit surprised by the
choices in -alt to not have a registry and to
use “alt” (which I associate with some Usenet
groups, showing my age). I’m quite fine with the
WG’s recommendations, however.
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
