Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson,
I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the
IAB statement.

My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three
possibilities for a special name.

The first is, a special but needs DNS resolution. This is one case the IAB
says, "register it and put it in DNS under arpa". (I don't think that is
controversial at all, and a wise recommendation.)

The second is, a Very Special, but does not belong in DNS.  (IAB second
option.)

The third is, a Not Very Special, and not in DNS. Not registered, FCFS. Not
covered by the IAB statement by virtue of not being registered, but IMHO
not conflicting with the IAB statement.

Very Special: It gets its entry in the registry in order to establish its
uniqueness, but isn't in DNS, so no entry under arpa. This avoids the
possibility of multiple mechanisms for interception fighting with each
other, since the behavior is (or should be) name-driven. Also wise, and
also in-scope for the IAB statement.

Not Very Special: whoever wants the name, is reasonably sure it won't be
exposed outside of a closed environment (e.g. a single application), and
doesn't want or need to go through the 6761 process to get the name
registered.

Not Very Special is basically 6761 without the registry, in a first-come,
first-served, no guarantees kind of way.

The "onion" thing showed the need for some way of avoiding TLDs, avoiding
conflicting names, and avoiding heavy process, IMHO. And I think "alt" is
the right answer.

Also IMHO, making it "alt.arpa" would be very confusing; I think any time
someone sees "arpa" as the TLD, they should believe it exists in the DNS.

Having "alt" be the parent name here, and not be in the DNS, keeps things
clear even to non-DNS folks.

And finally, maybe there is a use case for FCFS local-use names that
kind-of are in the DNS. If such a need were to arise, then THAT would be
something where "alt.arpa" would make sense. But given the relative ease in
adding things under arpa, I don't see a good reason for creating
non-registered FCFS when registered FCFS is available, under arpa.

Brian