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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

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