On 8/23/22 12:31, Warren Kumari wrote:
But my question would still be: Should the registry pose limitations, then,
on the 2LD? Because you cannot really have the one without the other?
I don't think that it can (or should). This is just a suggestion… I had considered wording it as
"it is recommended that…", but that sounded stronger and that people might confuse it
with "RECOMMENDED".
I think if you suggest/recommend to non-DNS protocol designers that their names
(third level and below) ideally would LDH domain names, then the 2LD IANA
registry at least SHOULD, perhaps MUST only accept such names.
Otherwise you get into inconsistent territory, because you'd allow a protocol
that uses only LDH names under its namespace to be registered in the .alt
registry under a non-LDH name.
Now, I see no shortage of 2LD names in the IANA registry, and requiring those to be LDH
does not mandate anything for the names below. (The last label, "alt", is
already LDH, and there's no harm whatsoever in making the 2nd label LDH as well.)
I'm much more inclined to mandate LDH for the IANA registry on the 2nd level
than recommending it for the 3rd level and below.
Best,
Peter
--
https://desec.io/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
