Re: [DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Ralph Droms <> Wed, 12 April 2017 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBFB127843 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IiH7gXud9fYB for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0308127077 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p68so31721537qke.1 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=DTX90DyqNHmIdG5Z1OhJWng56sraSLjT/Td++Emmzew=; b=AYWXkqWFVmb1r3kBwG2j2WycxC2FRkgZaZZIZnbLCd3DiCSvVJrEt0ZwUNsPSCEmD5 R0mA56eYBpWoABuYYV4ek23P/zrbHOQmfDH0f14XE/yxVWBcTY9j2c+hBDulpa9ugg/m UxupAl9XeUUdsdDh/BIwKE1LO7p7pk+jjBosLp+l4vjIUbHiEEriRGGdBlG33bV7Y/pp 2VPVYbuVFNGyJDqyClet7i7B6cKobfEiQtqu041JP0lAi3Rb/XycnN0E3bD8CIrqV+4/ +qsoz40yhcA00AsDWqBIWKhZIjoF7JzYHCOTadVT4z0sz6Cl2oGeS/+3KEDKDi571T1w MGbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=DTX90DyqNHmIdG5Z1OhJWng56sraSLjT/Td++Emmzew=; b=Z82g5PueijXIBAqITeCyV5uOWT57katusr9z9Hmr/y5BWuFQP9z0PFOWjBAP6rewd+ 3+H9yEHG3ylvfkQtsq1Ua3lny6Or7aPMQe4uWlcKXEKHRPBEYKcDcDPlLTsk2Ko+/CuL LbPvdBH4v5CnRKXE1ORBqJKqvErTsagfXKwY88NyPM1ExnD0JzMNr/+VHXM1DXk2Y4/U ozPS3CE1XDd0AIorqjt7c6PrMO+to5qzhHmPd7l0HR8VP0x6GjrYL5nMEr3HvfTNniYD urQqCYjvfO+cs8wDWU0i9MENu5z0byJUESLLioJFbempFasRUXK71B0wxR4DlxD+tFoJ MMrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0X2NnW/qFXlEsc1CMuOKpVqXc0yAeZPxyazmSG+91Lgm43n61qQWbPK2wQHC5h2g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 80mr61721497qkg.156.1492024543609; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:cd85:180a:9395:36e5? ([2601:18f:801:600:cd85:180a:9395:36e5]) by with ESMTPSA id f203sm10312162qka.11.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Droms <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:39 -0400
References: <> <> <> <>
To: dnsop <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:15:46 -0000

I have some editorial comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08.  I don't think any of these suggestions would make material changes to the meaning of the document, but would improve consistency, readability, etc.

Given the multiple meanings of the word "context", the first sentence of the Abstract might be clearer as:

   This document reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label for
   domain names intended for non-DNS resolution systems.

Would it be clearer to use "domain name" and cite RFC 7719 in the second sentence of section 1, instead of "Names that look like DNS names (a series of labels separated with dots) [...]"

In section 1, s/Special Use Domain/Special Use Domain Name/ to match the name of the IANA registry.

In section 1.2, I suggest citing RFC 7719 for definitions of "domain name" and "TLD".

In section 2, s/looked up/resolved/

Should RFC 2119 terms (e.g., "should not" and "SHOULD NOT") be capitalized consistently in section 4.1?

I don't think an RF 2119 "SHOULD" is appropriate for advice to human operators of DNS servers.

In section 5, I think the parenthetical would be better written without the parentheses, as the text in parentheses seems to be as important as the rest of the text.

- Ralph

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Ralph Droms <> wrote:
> I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 gives the intended status of the document as Informational, while it is listed in the datatracker as "In WG Last Call: Proposed Standard".  
> There are arguments in favor of each status.  The relevant text is in section 5 of RFC 6761:
>   An IETF "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" document specifying
>   some new naming behaviour, which requires a Special-Use Domain Name
>   be reserved to implement this desired new behaviour, needs to contain
>   a subsection of the "IANA Considerations" section titled "Domain Name
>   Reservation Considerations" giving answers in the seven categories
>   listed below.
> Publishing draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 as Proposed Standard meets the "Standards Action" requirement.  However, Proposed Standard may not be appropriate for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08, as the document does not specify a new protocol, as such.  draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 does specify certain behaviors for components of the Internet, which could be thought of as providing for interoperability so that Proposed Standard status would be appropriate.
> On the other hand, publishing draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 as Informational would require an "IESG Approval" document to meet the requirements of RFC 6761.  A short sentence added to draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 is likely all that would be needed, to the effect of "The IESG has reviewed this document and approves of the request to add .alt to the Special Use Domain Names registry."
> In any event, in my opinion the WG needs to express its explicit consensus about its choice of intended status for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08.
> - Ralph
>> On Apr 7, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Suzanne Woolf <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We had initially scheduled the WGLC on this document to be over by now. However, the flurry of activity around the review we were asked to do on the homenet-dot draft, and the general traffic level on the list during IETF 98, suggested to the chairs that we should extend the WGLC.
>> We’re hereby formally extending it to next Wednesday, April 12.
>> As always for WGLC— we need to hear both support and opposition for taking this draft to the next step in the process.
>> thanks,
>> Suzanne  & TIm
>>> On Apr 1, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400,
>>> Suzanne Woolf <> wrote 
>>> a message of 92 lines which said:
>>>> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
>>>> "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain"
>>>> <>
>>> I've read -08 and I believe I understand this draft. I'm not convinced
>>> it's useful (most users of alternative resolution systems won't use it
>>> and, anyway, I'm not even sure it will be added in the Special-Use
>>> registry, which was wrongly frozen by the IESG) but I don't see big
>>> issues with the draft, it seems to me it correctly describes the new
>>> TLD.
>>> Editorial :
>>> Section 1:
>>> "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"?
>>> Section 5 :
>>> After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference to
>>> RFC 7626?
>>> Normative references:
>>> Why is RFC 6303 a normative reference? It is no longer used.
>>> Why is RFC 7686 a normative reference? It is just an example.
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list