Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 13 September 2016 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C512212B611 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twzaKaDadF5I for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6718412B44C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.18] (50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u8DF5w0E084812 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:06:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230] claimed to be [10.32.60.18]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "George Michaelson" <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:05:58 -0700
Message-ID: <E48FAB8D-3160-41B6-B742-30538636CED2@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn0QupXOshyDH6qfmh4TLSmAFjfkVKDN3+jtmx38LEWy=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <147368142586.14471.16897934069436083953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKr6gn2RPb7B7A06R--Z8vn+Nr0H_UV=9=V2QeZU9tvTe6Bkug@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL1yCK89eWALtanBH-4z_U3HRxzJN4DSrGYabLC8XLEUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn0QupXOshyDH6qfmh4TLSmAFjfkVKDN3+jtmx38LEWy=A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/51svv07GjPqTWtwxKIfmFpyo8Eg>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:37:02 -0000

On 12 Sep 2016, at 18:38, George Michaelson wrote:

> If you wish to make it attractive, the meeting point is probably 
> not-dns

Agree.

> because alt is .. too desireable by others with different intent, in
> the real world.

It is also too unclear even to people who think it means "alternative": 
this name is an alternative to what? That's the same problem that the 
label had in the Usenet days.

> (I didn't mean >not-dns<)

Good, I had the same concern that Warren did.

> the advantage of the unicode choice, was purely that it avoided
> semantic meaning and was unlikely to be chosen. But I did also hope,
> that it would terminate in DNS of older code. A useful side-effect.

Not at all: it would just cause people who might get value from the new 
name not to use it. I agree with Warren: we want this name to feel like 
a first-class label.

--Paul Hoffman