Re: [DNSOP] draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld

[Peter Thomassen <[e-mail]>]

On 8/1/22 12:01, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>
>> I agree and I think publication of these drafts would be a good idea
>> (may be with status Experimental since, as Joe Abley said, there is
>> clearly no IETF consensus). Note that I am skeptical about their use:
>> most people who "preempt" .eth, .bitcoin, .web3 or .myownprotocol will
>> not read the RFC and, if they do, won't follow it. But at least we
>> will be able to say that we tried and we have a solution (and not a
>> ridiculous one such as "pay ICANN 185 000 US $").
> 
> +1. the namespace will be locally augmented. we should describe a way.

I agree, too.

> i'm particularly interested in whether the root zone should have an NS for the private-label tld(s) (.alt or ._alt or whatever)

Not sure if ._alt vs .alt has been discussed (in that case I've missed it.)

I'd like to use the opportunity to refer to using _* labels (such as ._myownprotocol): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vQCi5ibTXw6Vfr2gbTnk-D5jcW0/ It addresses some (not all) of Martin's concerns.

The OP wrote:
> TLD labels that begin with _

(Note the plural.) Perhaps that was intended to mean those _*-style TLDs.

> with an NS of "localhost" and a dnssec "opt out" indicator so that these private tlds can fit into the authenticity infrastructure.

That's one way. OTOH, if we specify _* as non-DNS use, resolver could just "know". (That does not preclude also doing what you're suggesting.)

~Peter

-- 
https://desec.io/