Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

Whats your reaction going to be, to a closed 6761 because if you come
to the microphone with a "but we built to the userbase, we have
millions" and make bambi eyes, I feel a bit like saying "you were
warned"

ie, squatting a domain, is squatting a domain, no  matter how much you
believe in your own process. If you populate code to the label, a
specific label, you're in moral hazard.

You cannot predict what label (if any) you will get. You need to code
agile, to a label being in another space (eg .alt) which is also
unknown. it has to be in a .conf or other runtime option, not hard
coded.

forever.

-G

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:40 AM, str4d <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 29/03/16 07:53, John Levine wrote:
>> Finally, no matter what we do, at some point someone will come by with
>> .GARLIC which is like .ONION but stronger and they will say (with some
>> justification) that it's used by a zillion people around the world.
>> "You should have used GARLIC.ALT." "Yeah, I guess so, but we didn't,
>> sorry."  Then we'll have to deal with it one way or the other.  I hope
>> that .alt will push that day off farther into the future but it's
>> unlikely to push it to infinity.
>
> Injecting a little levity: I2P does in fact use a variant of onion
> routing called garlic routing! But we are already in the 6761 process
> for .I2P, and have absolutely no desire to take garlic any further than
> a technical metaphor :)
>
> str4d
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>