On 12/15/22 01:59, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
On 14.12.22 12:25, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Dec 14, 2022, at 11:29, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote:
On 14.12.22 17:13, Paul Wouters wrote:
"bob.foo.alt" still squarely falls into "my" namespace
It is indeed not “yours”.
... from the perspective of DNS. Whether it is "yours" or "mine" from the
perspective of GNS is a matter for GNS to resolve (for example).
I was not talking from the perspective of IETF or DNS. The .alt is the Wild
West. Even GNS cannot claim exclusivity of a chunk of it. It is competing with
all the other unregulated namespaces.
Then the draft should just say that. And not insinuate that as a dev I
can or should do something about that.
I second that. I can understand that alternative namespace developers don't know what to
do about their "responsibility" to deal with conflicts.
It seems to me that the motivation behind the sentence
"Developers are wholly responsible for dealingwith any collisions that may
occur under .alt"
really is that the IETF does not feel responsible. So perhaps let's write
"The .alt namespace is unmanaged. Mitigation or resolution of any collisions
that may occur under .alt are outside the scope of this document and outside the IETF's
remit. Developers are advised to consider the associated risks when using names under
.alt."
... or similar. This way, it's very clear that "getting into collision
territory" is a conscious choice, but hopefully with reduced risk for the kind of
misunderstanding that started this particular subthread.
Best,
Peter
--
https://desec.io/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
