Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

To sharpen the question slightly….

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:11 PM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> In message <[e-mail]>, Ted Lemon writes:
>>> 
>>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> It appears to me that requesting an insecure delegation is the right
>>>>> thing to do, as a "technical use".  We have, so far, been very careful in
>>>>> what we ask for.  If ICANN does not agree, then we can discuss other
>>>>> options.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree.
>>> 
>>> I'm confused.   The .ALT TLD is expected to be used for non-DNS name
>>> lookups.   So isn't a secure denial of existence exactly what we want for
>>> .ALT?
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>>> What is the utility in having an un-signed delegation?
>> 
>> Alt can be used for whatever purpose that the user wants to use it
>> for including names served using the DNS protocol.
> 
> The draft restricts use of .alt as follows:
> 
>   This label is intended to be used as
>   the final (rightmost) label to signify that the name is not rooted in
>   the DNS, and that normal registration and lookup rules do not apply.
> 
> ...which would lead me to believe .alt would not be used for names served using the DNS protocol.
> 
> However, the phrase "not rooted in the DNS" might need some clarification.
> 
> In particular, would ".homenet.alt" be OK, as it is a locally-served zone, not a subdomain of the root zone?

As a slightly broader question, what does the WG want .ALT to do?

More specifically, perhaps, what problems discussed in draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02.txt do we want it to solve?

The WG can agree to change the current text, but I think the WG needs to agree on the purpose of ALT, as that seems likely to make it easier to decide what behavior we want to specify for it and, in turn, how it should be implemented.


Suzanne