Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

Joe Abley <> Fri, 23 August 2019 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CA1120128 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eeEaRjqDGZwJ for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80242120120 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t6so23555157ios.7 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=BL03XGt5inI9t8p/sqDxCwMEL79sSwSEnPJesaDcztQ=; b=YL752+hEQRAllePAizqRWRC35TDlukDgkxI63IxNg5VSV4AijM3jfl7xQzkBE5uXa4 Xww7v4M+TCfHBNTSkPS1tmJqtIPfV7IYKcXgCrBfd+Wc1mVncyKWv6J53UmUZdXtUE/W PWgcdHp6w5CzrZ/xEhQvfS9NHZcwE1Xn7jk5o=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=BL03XGt5inI9t8p/sqDxCwMEL79sSwSEnPJesaDcztQ=; b=mAc9gJG3eGvh3K19NMiyr0zlIp/DMPF2SVWIQRyc9k2vtSUhksK12g/tmxk5O6mfpB AYIgLWCdYL9us7CZFYwpQfKbRlpzqkYA0O8l22nYDKCO3zq/q7jT5ZPS2JcG4uAa0lHx thnkT12qvZm3gkA3rKA8sfC9cJAnMIlQVJcndQB1TgMzerK9XOKvx/j8Bywj9naP0kdU EiAe7hSeyXwrCa/d1vnxLAX/EYtXPjfOstbms5DnLQ7mvTsQuPkJUBniVL1l4BYBY95a QRdXuhFReH34jCfPhV5LtyJu6Gx3n1rnbHnVmG2yh36mOty6rWA3iHn3+59px8UaQyJr b8sg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU5OPyTU1zdJFjtvpd9eQiFPsMcdGUJZ6CeN98v9qARleP2w2v0 4r73ItxKMVMRnlrcSxqnKED0ug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxEdlUoKv7OQV9DoB0dseDMKy+g8xxRbK0Onkaw78UPPeWxucOjfzBvCBu6lO1UD2JEvcX8Pw==
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b4c5:: with SMTP id d188mr9172903iof.96.1566598229582; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id b17sm3414467ion.55.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Abley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_88E311D5-FEDA-4EF3-B070-4AF0B712FA77"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:10:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Warren Kumari <>, dnsop <>, John Levine <>, Suzanne Woolf <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <20190818182935.F172A87452C@ary.qy> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 22:10:32 -0000

Hi Ted,

On 23 Aug 2019, at 18:05, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> I haven’t read the latest version in a few weeks, and I must have missed the part about the “alt” TLD.   (Actually, I just checked, and my memory was correct—it isn’t there.)

Warren is talking about a different document.

> My problem with the “alt” TLD as originally proposed was that there was no registry.   I think this is nearly useless.   It’s fine for experiments, but once the experiment is done, you need an allocation.   And then you have a flag day, which sucks, so why not just have an allocation to begin with?

I don't mean to channel Warren (it's unnecessary because even when he's asleep he's still reading mail) but I think the whole point of the ALT proposal is not to have a registry. A registry attracts policy and dispute resolution; an informal, decentralised understanding that anything goes, please play nicely with each other is (it is proposed) less likely to lead to friction.

I find this aspect of the proposal quite appealing. I don't think the IETF wants to have any part in decision-making around who gets to go in an ALT registry, and I'm pretty sure ICANN already has their own scheme for this ("new gTLD programme") that they'd rather not complicate with something violently different. Solving the problem of who gets to make decisions with "nobody" seems elegant.

As I mentioned, I still have significant doubts that anybody will use this though.