Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 23 August 2019 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCD512011E for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBzXIxnJxw8N for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5F7D1200A4 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m10so9562230qkk.1 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OzWTCx4X9yaumzg6WjKWIGnZuytTLGTwRfxovioDxB0=; b=FYy3zxbF3dw1EOSfbu1EZL8pBLo2oDZ4IMO6mIDaFp886C90PQ0P5w5x7aTPaCWf95 sJP7AcXka2ROf06NO83UJ1nrSWTF48LMqMgA38Y4DkpzxoS59CIgvyrdHf0QH2Wof9TF 3KcjLG7d8EoTZ2+tazcMQcLBg4NebJs33MBcUG/gYPvRfQSJKz1VUUHYZisTEX4xhjQR gw4OeYQZnyHFUkFWyeJkTXzWEmO3QAxsIYqyx1X2dLm3sKvD8FqfyRw5mablqW8noVwi p53hNDAOocxqX9tnsq4e7UcvznBLC2BB5gju8NnWq4el7Q4/Z1wx773XhjVtpE8PHHUf KPoA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OzWTCx4X9yaumzg6WjKWIGnZuytTLGTwRfxovioDxB0=; b=l4IySDP4PGSTMKebozvo/OU+rGB1oPEFAwjBynla6Mbxdx5ZT1pQJJlTz+ws5OrKg5 HpwBVMWa6AkLEX4OWej727N55k6ZQr751EHEmnEkYbNxCT31FLoWJQLTVvBzXoXBDaKO NXhxObCB1jzXNj7wn45c3xVhHy1ffrDW2QDuBkQ3ZpUQWqPv0nRMVBtIqqe55MDtF9+o CMOn99g9g0aL0B2vkEo0sQvJRQ/5qWi7tG8jpu/6pUQQEhU38elWHcXDfiT4b8TKMmSJ sKKalp/65RISP0VrFZDEiiByiP5JLsohkYgtLmuhiD2SR0ZUtyv3a6BFgVvtUHR2tXjY nrhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVMMuYnC/5b/ZM0D16E8D25qY8lm9shTI+1+AkuHQf21VEbGiEx NOLG5jA5jpxiJlh6rDqz0VGp6pxpinMnXg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxw/BAwSP1L32fdPjVBC68qMOMKPwTjRiunNrB+F+7zo9EzEZcYMTSS07RP0kwsH3CbhepvsA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4b0d:: with SMTP id y13mr6289181qka.3.1566597942676; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 6sm2530377qtu.15.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3578.1\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:05:40 -0400
Cc: Warren Kumari <>, dnsop <>, John Levine <>, Suzanne Woolf <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <20190818182935.F172A87452C@ary.qy> <> <>
To: Joe Abley <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3578.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 22:05:45 -0000

I haven’t read the latest version in a few weeks, and I must have missed the part about the “alt” TLD.   (Actually, I just checked, and my memory was correct—it isn’t there.)  My problem with the “alt” TLD as originally proposed was that there was no registry.   I think this is nearly useless.   It’s fine for experiments, but once the experiment is done, you need an allocation.   And then you have a flag day, which sucks, so why not just have an allocation to begin with?

If we want to have a special TLD under which all new non-DNS protocols will publish their names, we need a registry for it.  This doesn’t need to be very heavyweight, but it needs to exist.   I think “specification exists” is probably the bar for entry.