> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:15, Paul Vixie <paul=40redbarn....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > > > Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 11:02: >> ... >>> On 22. Aug 2022, at 19:07, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: >>> ... >>> On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>>> ... >> I do not see why names under .alt must be compliant standard DNS names for >> any reason. > > +1. > > noting: by describing this as a reserved name subspace, we implicitly expect > that the presentation form of any namespace thus enabled will be "compatible > enough" with DNS presentation form to allow the reservation keyword (.ALT) to > be entered or displayed, and detected. we can in the specification for the > subspace reservation even state that implication. however, if someone wants > to go rogue on that, we shouldn't try to stop them. (as if we could.)
But I also think that if it is expected that name systems may "go rogue" e.g. use a new innovative new string encoding, then the registry might have trouble listing/registering the 2LD "byte string" chosen by the name system? So maybe Unicode provides sensible guide lines for acceptable strings under .alt _for the registry_? BR > > -- > P Vixie > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
