Re: [DNSOP] Post-Interim considering the 4 proposals

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 5/15/15 8:48 AM, str4d wrote:
> Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote:
>> Hi,
> 

<snip>

>> I believe that the grothoff and appelbaum drafts are the first 
>> cases of testing the mechanism for the use of the special names 
>> registry.  I also assume that the registry was created to be used 
>> for more than its initial propulation with things like .local and 
>> .invalid.

.local  is really the first (poster child) case. these proposals are
really the second.


>> Additionally, I agree with some members of the DNSOP community
>> that names matter.  "my-product.invalid" is not a good way to start
>> a venture.  Should .alt be available "my-product.alt" is far 
>> preferrable as confirmed by a member of the I2P community both at 
>> the Interim meeting and in later mailing list communication 
>> (str4d).

we shouldn't be in the business of setting up incentives for a behavior
we want to encourage by making them look like penalties.

> You are right in saying that .TLD.alt is preferable to .TLD.invalid
> from a user's perspective. But that does not automatically imply that
> .TLD.alt is preferable to .TLD.

agree.

I would expect that an future allocations of the form .tld would account
for the availability of alternative methods.

> What I said was, if I were writing a new I2P-like application
> requiring a non-DNS .TLD _after_ .alt had been accepted and publicized
> as the accepted way of establishing non-DNS domain structures, then I
> would use .TLD.alt instead of .TLD, because it would be far less
> hassle (to get it reserved, as I expect having .alt would enable IETF
> to more easily evaluate and accept reservations under it) for not much
> additional work educating users. I would of course _prefer_ to use
> .TLD on its own, but as an app developer I would take the path of
> least resistance. Right now, that is to register .TLD under RFC 6761.
> If .alt is accepted, it would be that.
> 
>> Indeed, that person claims that .alt would have been used if it
>> was both available and understood.
> 
> I said that I2P would _probably_ have used it, had .alt existed at the
> time as the accepted way of establishing non-DNS domain structures.
> However, I want to ensure that these two points are abundantly clear:
> 
> * I am not one of the original developers of I2P. I was not involved
> with I2P until years after .i2p had already been chosen and
> established, so I cannot speak for what they would actually have done.
> 
> * Even if .alt does become available, I2P will not be transitioning to
> it. (This has already been thoroughly discussed previously on this ML
> around the P2PNames draft in general, and the .onion and .i2p TLDs in
> particular.)

The question of what to do about the existing practice seems orthogional
to the question of what to do about future ones.

<snip>