Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note]
which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be
addressed directly, not as editorial.

Secondly, The authors make a judgement call in this block that they
feel requesting delegation is not required. I don't feel the consensus
was that strong actually, but you know, I guess I could be wrong on
that.

Thirdly the draft contains no language which actually explains why a
TLD is required, rather than a deterministic string which denotes 'not
in the DNS' -It may be blindingly obvious to you it has to be a TLD,
but given that the entry of DNS label-strings into the DNS is through
software, and given that at some point, the simple un-parsed string
'something.alt' has to be presented, I would have expected an
explanation why 'alt.arpa' as a pattern match in the DNS entry can't
work as well as 'alt'. Bear in mind, that the argumentative text
states .ONION is a comparator, so poses the problem back on (future)
s/w authors that currently seek a TLD as a pattern match, and now have
to code to ONION.ALT as a pattern match (the match on ALT implies
parsing it off, to denote ONION as a non-DNS label, or embedding of
ALT in the non-DNS namespace) so the dots-parsing problem exists for
the s/w owners *come what may*

Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that
any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why
this draft is special, against that letter.  You make a compelling and
simple case: because its specifically NOT-DNS, not public DNS, its not
relevant. Ok, then say so. 'we didn't say so because it wasn't
relevant' feels pretty weak to me.

I can do this as a nit in the GIT if you prefer.

-G


On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote:
>
>> isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now?
>
>
> No.
>
>> Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed
>> without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case.
>
>
> Are you saying that because of:
>
> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names-in-the-arpa-domain/
> If so, I suspect you read it wrong. My reading is that the IAB is only
> saying that names that are supposed to act like DNS names (that is, to exist
> in the public DNS) need to be under .arpa. This draft explicitly is about
> non-DNS contexts.
>
> --Paul Hoffman