Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

[hellekin <[e-mail]>]

On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
>         Authors         : Warren Kumari
>                           Andrew Sullivan
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt
> 	Pages           : 10
> 	Date            : 2016-09-12
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label in
>    non-DNS contexts or for names that have no meaning in a global
>    context.  It also provides advice and guidance to developers
>    developing alternate namespaces.
> 

Finally I read this draft after I realized the presence of this "or" in
"... in non-DNS contexts *or* for names that have no meaning in a global
context."

I must apologize for staying on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04 and not
reading anymore of this draft, as it was explicitly stating the following:

"The ALT label MAY be used in any domain name as a pseudo-TLD to signify
that this is an alternate (non-DNS) namespace."

And:

"Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs
(for example, the ".onion" pseudo-TLD (and other labels in
[I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names]) are encouraged but not
required to move under the ALT TLD.  Rather, the ALT TLD is being
reserved so that future projects of a similar nature have a designated
place to create alternate resolution namespaces that will not conflict
with the regular DNS context."

Yet, this explicit recognition of existing name requests for P2P systems
was removed from the next draft on, and is obviously absent from the
current draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt, which implicitly declares the
special-use names of P2P systems as falling under .ALT.  Since this
draft is reserving the .ALT TLD using RFC6761, and there's an ongoing
discussion about this RFC to figure out a proper way to use it, update
it, or dismiss it, I find the situation unacceptable.  Please correct me
if I'm wrong, but it really seems to me that this is the case, and that
the .ALT draft, which wasn't meant to threaten the history of the P2P
names, indeed became a way to easily dismiss any further discussion
about them.

Regards,

==
hk