I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question: Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft going to LC if that draft didn't say it?
If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some sense: in or not in a registry; passed or not passed into the DNS; delegated or not delegated via ICANN; would you reference the IAB document? If not, why not? -George On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote: > In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson, > I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the > IAB statement. > > My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three possibilities > for a special name. > > The first is, a special but needs DNS resolution. This is one case the IAB > says, "register it and put it in DNS under arpa". (I don't think that is > controversial at all, and a wise recommendation.) > > The second is, a Very Special, but does not belong in DNS. (IAB second > option.) > > The third is, a Not Very Special, and not in DNS. Not registered, FCFS. Not > covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO not > conflicting with the IAB statement. > > Very Special: It gets its entry in the registry in order to establish its > uniqueness, but isn't in DNS, so no entry under arpa. This avoids the > possibility of multiple mechanisms for interception fighting with each > other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and also > in-scope for the IAB statement. > > Not Very Special: whoever wants the name, is reasonably sure it won't be > exposed outside of a closed environment (e.g. a single application), and > doesn't want or need to go through the 6761 process to get the name > registered. > > Not Very Special is basically 6761 without the registry, in a first-come, > first-served, no guarantees kind of way. > > The "onion" thing showed the need for some way of avoiding TLDs, avoiding > conflicting names, and avoiding heavy process, IMHO. And I think "alt" is > the right answer. > > Also IMHO, making it "alt.arpa" would be very confusing; I think any time > someone sees "arpa" as the TLD, they should believe it exists in the DNS. > > Having "alt" be the parent name here, and not be in the DNS, keeps things > clear even to non-DNS folks. > > And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that kind-of > are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be something > where "alt.arpa" would make sense. But given the relative ease in adding > things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating non-registered > FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
