Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 04 June 2015 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7DF1A8F4B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01rs90BVObJH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B582F1A8F49 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20810 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2015 19:53:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Jun 2015 19:53:33 -0000
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 19:53:02 -0000
Message-ID: <20150604195302.45322.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20150604155936.GJ94969@mx2.yitter.info>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fxyhO-gHNqi4GEiK_IwH3rDPf_8>
Cc: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 19:53:27 -0000

>> This is a really good point.   I think there does need to be a .ALT registry in order for .ALT to be able to
>address anything other than experimental uses.
>And I think this would actually be a good thing.
>
>If we created a registry for alt, how would alt not be just another
>TLD with exactly the same status as any other domain name registry?
>You can already register a name in the DNS registries and not turn it
>on in the DNS.

I think the key difference would be that it would accept any number of
entries for the same string, and would have a pointer to the place
where you can download the code that implements it.  If you use
foo.alt and I use foo.alt, well, that's our problem.  There is also no
reason to have only one such registry, or why any organization with a
name starting with "I" would run any of them.

As I mentioned before, given that the whole point of .alt is that
people are implementing things that look like DNS names but are
resolved in some other way, the winner of any such conflict is the one
with widely used running code.

R's,
John