On 8/1/22 12:01, Paul Vixie wrote:
I agree and I think publication of these drafts would be a good idea
(may be with status Experimental since, as Joe Abley said, there is
clearly no IETF consensus). Note that I am skeptical about their use:
most people who "preempt" .eth, .bitcoin, .web3 or .myownprotocol will
not read the RFC and, if they do, won't follow it. But at least we
will be able to say that we tried and we have a solution (and not a
ridiculous one such as "pay ICANN 185 000 US $").
+1. the namespace will be locally augmented. we should describe a way.
I agree, too.
i'm particularly interested in whether the root zone should have an NS for the
private-label tld(s) (.alt or ._alt or whatever)
Not sure if ._alt vs .alt has been discussed (in that case I've missed it.)
I'd like to use the opportunity to refer to using _* labels (such as
._myownprotocol):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vQCi5ibTXw6Vfr2gbTnk-D5jcW0/ It
addresses some (not all) of Martin's concerns.
The OP wrote:
TLD labels that begin with _
(Note the plural.) Perhaps that was intended to mean those _*-style TLDs.
with an NS of "localhost" and a dnssec "opt out" indicator so that these
private tlds can fit into the authenticity infrastructure.
That's one way. OTOH, if we specify _* as non-DNS use, resolver could just
"know". (That does not preclude also doing what you're suggesting.)
~Peter
--
https://desec.io/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
