[DNSOP] AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-21

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi authors, WG,

Here are my AD review comments on -21 of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld.  They are all minor/nit comments, meaning that I'll leave it to the authors discretion as to how they want to handle these comments. 


Minor level comments:

(1) p 3, sec 2.  The alt Namespace

   Groups wishing to create new alternative namespaces may create their
   alternative namespace under a label that names their namespace under
   the .alt pseudo-TLD.  The .alt namespace is unmanaged.

This seems slightly strong given that the ISE draft is planning on setting up a registry somewhere.  So, perhaps "The .alt namespace is not managed by the IETF or IANA"?


(2) p 3, sec 2.  The alt Namespace

     This document
   does not define a registry or governance model for the .alt
   namespace.  Developers, applications and users should not expect
   unambiguous mappings from names to name resolution mechanisms.

Is "Developers, applications, users should not expect unambiguous mappings" a bit strong?  A possible alternative could be: "Developers, applications and users are not guaranteed to have unambiguous mappings from names to name resolution mechanisms."


(3) p 3, sec 2.  The alt Namespace

   Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs
   may choose to move under the .alt pseudo-TLD, but this is not a
   requirement.

I was wondering whether we could we be slightly stronger here and use "recommended to move" rather than "may choose to move"?  I.e., I think that the IETF position could reasonably be that we would like these to all turn up under alt and not squat in the root namespace.



Nit level comments:

(4) p 6, sec Appendix A.  Changes / Author Notes.

   *  During AD review, made a few more requested changes

As a minor nit, I think that these comments were during the WGLC, rather than AD review.

Regards,
Rob