On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 04:04, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
wrote:
> 1/ I support Paul Wouters' issue with the name "pseudo-TLD", it is both too
> late and a bike-shedding exercice... "ghost-TLD" or "filler-TLD" or
> "dummy-TLD"
> would have been better
This is a part of the namespace specifically carved out for dragons of species
both known and not yet imagined. It's not DNS-specific.
If we consider this purely a part of the namespace and try really hard to scrub
all the familiar DNS and DNS registry baggage from our minds when we think of
it, there is no difference between ALT and COM or ALT and ARPA.
So I don't know why TLD needs to be qualified with "pseudo" or "ghost" or
"filler" or "dummy" or anything else. ALT as defined in this document is a TLD.
In fact, I think suggesting that it is not simply adds unnecessary ambigutiy.
I don't think this is a reason to hold up the document. I think this ought to
be an uncontentious clarification to the document that could be made even at
this late stage of its lifecycle but I'm not naive enough to think that is the
case :-)
Joe
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
