Hiya,
I've scanned the draft and read the thread. AFAICS the draft does not ask for a new 6761 (*) special use name, so ISTM speculation as to what the authors or their pals would be better off doing is moot. (I.e. there's no point telling 'em to go away and come back asking to use gnu.alt or whatever - they know enough already to ask for that if that's what they want.) I think the draft as-is should be published by the ISE with a disclaimer that deployment of what's described isn't consistent with the DNS, but I see no reason to ask for more than such a disclaimer, to publish an independent stream RFC describing a technology that's been around a number of years and has what I guess is a relatively modest scale deployment. Cheers, S. (*) For those who think nobody likes 6761 - I do! And in addition, the idea that adding a new tld label should "cost" the same as 10^5 or so litres of milk is appalling. IMO ICANN should and will in future be ashamed that that's how they played the gtld game. On 01/08/2022 13:31, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote:
Hello from your friendly neighborhood independent submissions editor.It is indeed the case that draft-schanzen-gns is in conflict review. It is also the case that Warren and I have been discussing that review. Obviously there are some concerns. On the one hand, we need to find a way for people to explore alternative namespaces that look a bit like domain names. On the other hand, we don't want to create problems with user expectations. draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld seems like a reasonable means to bridge these concerns.The ISE is willing to wait a reasonable period of time for this work to conclude. It seems that you are close to done. I know that this draft doesn't solve *all* namespace research problems by any stretch, but it will make life easier for at least SOME researchers, not to mention me.Whether that means using TLD labels that begin with _ or whether that means suffixing them with ".ALT", I leave to you experts to sort. I do agree with Martin that it would be helpful to have some registration of names so that conflicts between name spaces can be avoided. This would also encourage formal documentation of those projects.Thanks! Eliot (ISE) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
