Re: [DNSOP] AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-21

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 2:53 PM, Rob Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi authors, WG,
>
> Here are my AD review comments on -21 of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. They
> are all minor/nit comments, meaning that I'll leave it to the authors
> discretion as to how they want to handle these comments.
>
> Minor level comments:
>
> (1) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
>
> Groups wishing to create new alternative namespaces may create their
> alternative namespace under a label that names their namespace under the
> .alt pseudo-TLD. The .alt namespace is unmanaged.
>
> This seems slightly strong given that the ISE draft is planning on setting
> up a registry somewhere. So, perhaps "The .alt namespace is not managed by
> the IETF or IANA"?
>

Good point.

Here is the original with a bit more text for context:
"The .alt namespace is unmanaged. This document does not define a registry
or governance model for the .alt namespace."

I don't really know if GNU creating a registry really counts at "managing"
the .alt namespace, but we can skip that philosophical question by
rewording it like so:

"This document defines neither a registry nor governance model for the .alt
namespace, as it is not managed by the IETF or IANA. "


(2) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
>
>
> This document
> does not define a registry or governance model for the .alt namespace.
> Developers, applications and users should not expect unambiguous mappings
> from names to name resolution mechanisms.
>
>
> Is "Developers, applications, users should not expect unambiguous
> mappings" a bit strong? A possible alternative could be: "Developers,
> applications and users are not guaranteed to have unambiguous mappings from
> names to name resolution mechanisms."
>

Hmmm - I'm not sure if it is actually a bit strong, I think that the issue
is more that we cannot really tell developers or users to "expect" anything
— my auntie might well expect some.name.gns.alt to be an unambiguous
mapping, and telling her that she shouldn't expect this is silly - she
doesn't read RFCs[0]

I changed this to "There is no guarantee of unambiguous mappings from names
to name resolution mechanisms." ? I removed the "Developers, applications
and users" wording as it just opens the question of who should expect this
(cats?), or who might be guaranteed anything (chimps?).

(3) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
>
> Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs may
> choose to move under the .alt pseudo-TLD, but this is not a requirement.
>
> I was wondering whether we could we be slightly stronger here and use
> "recommended to move" rather than "may choose to move"? I.e., I think that
> the IETF position could reasonably be that we would like these to all turn
> up under alt and not squat in the root namespace.
>

This works for me - it's not a requirement, and so people can happily
ignore it. Of course, even if it were a requirement, people can still
happily ignore it… (
https://i.cbc.ca/1.3173445.1438223040!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/winnipeg-blue-bombers.jpg
)


> Nit level comments:
>
> (4) p 6, sec Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes.
>
> * During AD review, made a few more requested changes
>
> As a minor nit, I think that these comments were during the WGLC, rather
> than AD review.
>


Fair 'nuff, fixed.

I also added some additional names to the acknowledgement section - *huge*
apologies to anyone we may have missed…

Warren.

[0]: I know this for a fact, as she doesn't actually exist :-P



On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 2:53 PM, Rob Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi authors, WG,
>
> Here are my AD review comments on -21 of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. They
> are all minor/nit comments, meaning that I'll leave it to the authors
> discretion as to how they want to handle these comments.
>
> Minor level comments:
>
> (1) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
>
> Groups wishing to create new alternative namespaces may create their
> alternative namespace under a label that names their namespace under the
> .alt pseudo-TLD. The .alt namespace is unmanaged.
>
> This seems slightly strong given that the ISE draft is planning on setting
> up a registry somewhere. So, perhaps "The .alt namespace is not managed by
> the IETF or IANA"?
>
> (2) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
>
> This document
> does not define a registry or governance model for the .alt namespace.
> Developers, applications and users should not expect unambiguous mappings
> from names to name resolution mechanisms.
>
> Is "Developers, applications, users should not expect unambiguous
> mappings" a bit strong? A possible alternative could be: "Developers,
> applications and users are not guaranteed to have unambiguous mappings from
> names to name resolution mechanisms."
>
> (3) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
>
> Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs may
> choose to move under the .alt pseudo-TLD, but this is not a requirement.
>
> I was wondering whether we could we be slightly stronger here and use
> "recommended to move" rather than "may choose to move"? I.e., I think that
> the IETF position could reasonably be that we would like these to all turn
> up under alt and not squat in the root namespace.
>
> Nit level comments:
>
> (4) p 6, sec Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes.
>
> * During AD review, made a few more requested changes
>
> As a minor nit, I think that these comments were during the WGLC, rather
> than AD review.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>