Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday 4 December 2013 at 14:40, Warren Kumari wrote:

> I really like .alt -- it makes it clear that this is an alternate namespace type thing, mirrors the usenet alt convention, etc.
> .p2p seems less descriptive, and not all alternate things are peer to peer.

I think it's pertinent to characterise what you mean by .alt (or .whatever). Do you mean adding .alt to the reserved list so that it is not used? Or do you mean it should be delegated somewhere? If so, that can of worms will need to be opened at some point, and pandora's box of root zone management needs to be opened.
> Whatever the case, .<new label> could be delegated to AS112 -- if you don't have the special source that uses the alternate namespace this will at least cut down on the excess "junk" queries hitting the root.

See above regarding the Box, but also bear in mind that we're moving AS112 towards DNAME redirection rather than delegation.

There was at least one study commissioned by ICANN on the prudence of provisioning DNAME RRs in the root zone that concluded that there was no obvious danger, but remember that any novel RRTypes in the root zone are going to need implementation time in the systems and processes involved in root zone management, and such changes have proven in the past to be neither quick nor easy.

There are also many non-technical communities that have demonstrated the effectiveness of their brakes when it comes to making changes to root zone provisioning, no matter how benign the change might seem to a technical audience.

Note that I'm not commenting on any general or specific idea, just pointing out that there are dragons every which way you look if your proposal involves the root zone.


Joe