Ben Schwartz wrote on 2022-08-18 12:11:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:15 PM Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> ...
That is exactly why IMO the namespaces under .alt must have a
technical merit and this merit gives the protocol a shot at a (or a
few based on the technical design) (free) name under .alt.
It should not be possible to get such a name in the registry without
a technical justification (e.g. a spec that proposes a new way of
doing name resolution). No political or policy considerations necessary.
And this is why there must be a registration policy and process.
What you are describing does not resemble draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld,
which would define the "alt" SUDN. That document says:
There is no IANA
registry for names under the ALT TLD - it is an unmanaged namespace,
and developers are responsible for dealing with any collisions that
may occur under .alt.
If you want a SUDN for technically meritorious non-DNS names, perhaps
you should distinguish that proposal from .alt.
i don't think the .ALT draft is going to move forward without such
change, so the distinction will be between .ALT as proposed and .ALT as
evolved, not between .ALT and some other SUDN.
This merit needs to be established, yes. And I think it should be
done through review by the IETF or the ISE.
And yes, there is a reason why this sounds a bit like a RFC6761
SU-TLD, because the motivation makes sense to me.
In this case, the path forward is clear: propose GNS as a
standards-track RFC, proceed through to publication, and use the RFC
6761 process to claim a SUDN for it. ...
we're not "in" that case. RFC 6761 is in abeyance, its merits having
been widely questioned. many RFC's sneak through and this was one.
Publication of a standards-track
RFC is the IETF's sole mechanism for indicating support for the merit of
a technical proposal, and is also the threshold for use of RFC 6761.
However, if the IETF does not have consensus to adopt GNS as a standard,
then it is difficult to see why the IETF would allocate a portion of the
namespace for it.
that whole model is unworkable, and i expect the .ALT document to
replace RFC 6761. IETF needs different powers than those now described.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
