On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, Stephen Farrell wrote:
domains at IANA.
FWIW, that doesn't describe where I've so far
landed on this. It omits the requirement that
there be an RFC for each entry.
As I've said several times, most recently yesterday, if we make people
jump through hoops to put their name
Hiya,
On 19/08/2022 14:35, Paul Wouters wrote:
Okay, so I understood that you want to run a yellow pages for non-DNS
domains at IANA.
FWIW, that doesn't describe where I've so far
landed on this. It omits the requirement that
there be an RFC for each entry. That IMO does
mean such a registry
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, John R Levine wrote:
I could have been clearer. The names can be duplicates, not the rest of
the entry. So someone comes along and registers web.alt with a pointer
to her thing, then someone else comes along with a different thing but
also calls it web.alt, and we ano
I could have been clearer. The names can be duplicates, not the rest of the
entry. So someone comes along and registers web.alt with a pointer to her
thing, then someone else comes along with a different thing but also calls it
web.alt, and we another entry in the registry.
What does the r
> On Aug 18, 2022, at 22:14, John R Levine wrote:
>
> I could have been clearer. The names can be duplicates, not the rest of the
> entry. So someone comes along and registers web.alt with a pointer to her
> thing, then someone else comes along with a different thing but also calls it
> w
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Aug 18, 2022, at 18:30, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Eliot Lear
It seems to me that the key word here is "cooperating." Considering
how many projects squat on various bits of the DNS name space, we have
seen only one show any interest in the
On Aug 18, 2022, at 18:30, John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Eliot Lear
> It seems to me that the key word here is "cooperating." Considering
> how many projects squat on various bits of the DNS name space, we have
> seen only one show any interest in the RFC route
This is incorrect. A n
“we have seen only one” is not true. What is true is that we pretty much told
everyone who asked to go away, with the exception of .onion. E.g., .home was
told to go away, and we wound up using home.arpa instead, which is perfectly
fine for our use case.
Your observation about implementation is
It appears that Eliot Lear said:
> 1. Conflicts can be avoided between deployments of cooperating name
>systems; and
It seems to me that the key word here is "cooperating." Considering
how many projects squat on various bits of the DNS name space, we have
seen only one show any interest in t
On 18/08/2022 21:11, Eliot Lear wrote:
I could see the value in reserving dns.alt, and the potential mischief
that could ensue by not doing so.
Ugh. Were that done I'd be worried abut the effect
on the web PKI of creating sorta-synonyms like that.
S.
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Descript
Eliot Lear wrote on 2022-08-18 13:11:
...
I could see the value in reserving dns.alt, and the potential mischief
that could ensue by not doing so.
that way lies madness. let the FCFS process and technical review include
space for objecting to the requested 2LD label.
--
P Vixie
___
Hi George,
I could see the value in reserving dns.alt, and the potential mischief
that could ensue by not doing so.
Eliot
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l
Stephen Farrell wrote on 2022-08-18 12:43:
Hiya,
On 18/08/2022 20:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
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.
I think I agree
You appear to be taking the concept to a place where alt is the label
which defines the start of non-DNS switching, and the 2LD is the
specification of the namespace/service you work in. So its a domain
model, driving to software and namespace path, before it begins
resolution of the name proper. (
Hi Ben,
On 18.08.22 21:11, Ben Schwartz wrote:
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 respons
Hiya,
On 18/08/2022 20:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
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.
I think I agree. But to check: are we saying that the .alt
I-
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) (fr
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:15 PM Schanzenbach, Martin <
mschanzenb...@posteo.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 16. Aug 2022, at 16:32, David Conrad wrote:
> >
> > Signed PGP part
> > On Aug 15, 2022, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:On 16/08/2022 03:01, John Levine wrote:
> >>> Right. If it's FCFS, I
Hi Warren,
Are you proposing dot Alt, or are you proposing dot Alt dot.? It would seem to
me that a new naming system like the GNS that wants to be outside the DNS would
want its own root too, like just Alt for example. You could always reel it back
in later right? You know, interoperability an
On Aug 16, 2022, at 16:15, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> And this is why there must be a registration policy and process.
If that's really where this conversation has landed, then perhaps it's worth
pointing out again that a variety of such registration policies and processes
already exist, as
Hi,
> On 16. Aug 2022, at 16:32, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On Aug 15, 2022, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:On 16/08/2022 03:01, John Levine wrote:
>>> Right. If it's FCFS, I am sure I am not the only person who will be
>>> waiting at the gate with thousands of preemptive r
Stephen, an example:
I have Unique DNS TLDs that represent Mr Conrad, Mr Vixie, Mr Levine and
others that I am selling as NonFungibleTokens (NFTs). (*)
Whatever large sums of money you will pay me now will be nothing compared
to the amount of money they will be worth in the future.
You can trust m
On Aug 15, 2022, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:On 16/08/2022 03:01, John Levine wrote:
>> Right. If it's FCFS, I am sure I am not the only person who will be
>> waiting at the gate with thousands of preemptive registrations.
> Why?
Because they believe (or are convinced) there is or will be
Hiya,
On 16/08/2022 03:01, John Levine wrote:
Right. If it's FCFS, I am sure I am not the only person who will be
waiting at the gate with thousands of preemptive registrations.
Why?
I honestly don't know so that's not a rhetorical question.
Ta,
S.
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Descripti
It appears that Paul Wouters said:
>>> Meanwhile, IANA will have to host 60M entries in the .alt registry.
>>
>> that would be a success disaster, and self limiting. to get traction, a new
>> non-tcp/53 non-udp/53 would have to publish plugins for a lot of browsers
>and get uptake by libcurl an
25 matches
Mail list logo
