Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-15 11:49:
... So, from my authors hat, I would appreciate FCFS; ideally also existing RFC/Other Specification + Implementation(s) for a registration in the registry.
"existing RFC" means all alternative name resolutions have to flow through either the IETF or ISE. That is not something the IETF would want to take on I think. "Other specification" would likely lead to many copy & paste drafts based on the first draft that is used to get an entry in .alt, with only the name changed. If an implementation is required, we will see many github forks with just a name change. Meanwhile, IANA will have to host 60M entries in the .alt registry. I guess we could prevent draft--alt-name-cocacola if we consult the Trademark Clearing House, but maybe this is a clear signal that we are turning the IETF into ICANN and it is time to take a step^Wleap back. The IETF cannot bear the burden of managing or policing a non-IETF namespace war, even handling a FCFS registry will take too many resources. Paul W _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
