Re: [DNSOP] draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

I've scanned the draft and read the thread.

AFAICS the draft does not ask for a new 6761 (*) special use
name, so ISTM speculation as to what the authors or their
pals would be better off doing is moot. (I.e. there's no
point telling 'em to go away and come back asking to use
gnu.alt or whatever - they know enough already to ask for
that if that's what they want.)

I think the draft as-is should be published by the ISE with
a disclaimer that deployment of what's described isn't
consistent with the DNS, but I see no reason to ask for more
than such a disclaimer, to publish an independent stream RFC
describing a technology that's been around a number of years
and has what I guess is a relatively modest scale deployment.

Cheers,
S.

(*) For those who think nobody likes 6761 - I do! And in
addition, the idea that adding a new tld label should "cost"
the same as 10^5 or so litres of milk is appalling. IMO ICANN
should and will in future be ashamed that that's how they
played the gtld game.


On 01/08/2022 13:31, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote:
> Hello from your friendly neighborhood independent submissions editor.
> 
> It is indeed the case that draft-schanzen-gns is in conflict review.  It 
> is also the case that Warren and I have been discussing that review. 
> Obviously there are some concerns.  On the one hand, we need to find a 
> way for people to explore alternative namespaces that look a bit like 
> domain names.  On the other hand, we don't want to create problems with 
> user expectations.  draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld seems like a reasonable means 
> to bridge these concerns.
> 
> The ISE is willing to wait a reasonable period of time for this work to 
> conclude.   It seems that you are close to done.  I know that this draft 
> doesn't solve *all* namespace research problems by any stretch, but it 
> will make life easier for at least SOME researchers, not to mention me.
> 
> Whether that means using TLD labels that begin with _ or whether that 
> means suffixing them with ".ALT", I leave to you experts to sort.  I do 
> agree with Martin that it would be helpful to have some registration of 
> names so that conflicts between name spaces can be avoided.  This would 
> also encourage formal documentation of those projects.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Eliot (ISE)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop