Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

Andrew Sullivan <> Thu, 13 February 2014 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40151A01F1 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:59:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tx3rlmqDuemZ for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9DB1A008E for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE95A8A031 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:59:37 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:59:32 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:59:41 -0000

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 01:24:07PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> I think therefore that the ALT draft addresses quite a different problem: the choice of DNS-like (but not DNS) name structure for new applications that we don't know about yet.

I won't speak for Warren, but certainly this is _my_ view of our goal.
I do not want our current proposal (which doubtless needs improvements
in details) to get bound up with whether existing uses ought instead
to be subsumed.  But on another list we just heard about yet _another_
of these "pseudo-TLDs" crawling out of the woodwork.  When it was
observed to said pseudo-TLD pusher that the approach might run into
fewer problems if it were anchored somewhere else, he said that it was
a feature that it attacked the IANA root.  If we don't have an
ordinary and standard place where such uses can fit, then these sorts
of vandals will have a pragmatic argument open to them.  If we _do_
have a standard place for this stuff, then at least the pragmatic
argument will be closed, and we can have a discussion about the merits,
understanding that the goal really is in many cases to attack the
orderly operation of the public DNS.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan