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

I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question:
Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft
going to LC if that draft didn't say it?

If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some sense: in or
not in a registry; passed or not passed into the DNS; delegated or not
delegated via ICANN; would you reference the IAB document? If not, why
not?

-George

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Brian Dickson
<brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson,
> I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the
> IAB statement.
>
> My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three possibilities
> for a special name.
>
> The first is, a special but needs DNS resolution. This is one case the IAB
> says, "register it and put it in DNS under arpa". (I don't think that is
> controversial at all, and a wise recommendation.)
>
> The second is, a Very Special, but does not belong in DNS.  (IAB second
> option.)
>
> The third is, a Not Very Special, and not in DNS. Not registered, FCFS. Not
> covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO not
> conflicting with the IAB statement.
>
> Very Special: It gets its entry in the registry in order to establish its
> uniqueness, but isn't in DNS, so no entry under arpa. This avoids the
> possibility of multiple mechanisms for interception fighting with each
> other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and also
> in-scope for the IAB statement.
>
> Not Very Special: whoever wants the name, is reasonably sure it won't be
> exposed outside of a closed environment (e.g. a single application), and
> doesn't want or need to go through the 6761 process to get the name
> registered.
>
> Not Very Special is basically 6761 without the registry, in a first-come,
> first-served, no guarantees kind of way.
>
> The "onion" thing showed the need for some way of avoiding TLDs, avoiding
> conflicting names, and avoiding heavy process, IMHO. And I think "alt" is
> the right answer.
>
> Also IMHO, making it "alt.arpa" would be very confusing; I think any time
> someone sees "arpa" as the TLD, they should believe it exists in the DNS.
>
> Having "alt" be the parent name here, and not be in the DNS, keeps things
> clear even to non-DNS folks.
>
> And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that kind-of
> are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be something
> where "alt.arpa" would make sense. But given the relative ease in adding
> things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating non-registered
> FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa.
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>