Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Warren Kumari <> Sun, 12 March 2017 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E69129519 for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 84ZqU8dNDlN6 for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FFE1129514 for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p64so208147553qke.1 for <>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O99k7Ewbh8wHSv1Z74yw7gtdJd7/BLpkv28f019bv2U=; b=IxFImb12AyN2X1uvLIcLXplsFSVoH9Enrx6GVKxz+QfIoOnAle+KHd11n/za/nA3sj TJcO7pplTe/rhLkZEzKov/GU4d6Jh4JiNMr9b14ppuuk2wJvxDcMR5jPl1VoAguuTnAX 3MOyR1dGNwwQjhpd/uY/AlZCi0DxzcOYmKxxsVVcJ5Ezrjd35DSPNcDr4AHMqvTMnAg4 U/UrlrlyLLvMjiUtkoeR/UX5jqoQ27JKuGrjKbBOjo1TOyi9zxjky1ZNTmdegse6EAvP 3SNfSZrQHfkE8EW0osKJ4HV44EpEzkbpnPWKz3zmt0447XKSNpXA2CvU60aujmvAFFXo piLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O99k7Ewbh8wHSv1Z74yw7gtdJd7/BLpkv28f019bv2U=; b=QFDmNpfXvbeIWw53V+LNZ7KHCBUWAdBkec270J7y6Sec0cA+PEbObN9a7S3emAZgrA j+rB1TylZ/yftQz3u//OEoQIJnQLoXvyId/7jODSPFAr/NKoHj8NffY8Frm+lBSNTvPs CuUA+vfzHIOFcjRtwjbj2W2aZ5Hzv+ad22Nw920izadOFlPB4J5XYiSk/J/cqKgOwhbU U0aIIaNipvOLWyqXPNaeQLMMcVmSGdOy+j5A8kmlZ3X+bkQDfkluRMeE/sP4STQosToB pccK/MqWK4e5kd4lCmhzZVeONmEtL8AhHQlcAFq6OyhyeHCvD29s2GFGljPS7sFJqsBl aBBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0wZag7g//Q1vXDLaQlo3KmXKcRq7N/Tq38qSrfT9JOedyY1te9HZ34qCeRjfUQEQ4GhvMMmPwihm68DH85
X-Received: by with SMTP id q66mr27389726qkd.13.1489334298254; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:57:47 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Warren Kumari <>, dnsop <>, Ted Lemon <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:58:22 -0000

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Jari Arkko <> wrote:
> For what it is worth, reviewed these documents today
> as an interested individual, and both seem to be OK
> from my (very limited DNS expertise) perspective.

Thank you.

> Thanks for your work on this important space.
> I did have a few mostly editorial comments though.
> In sutld-ps, Section 3:
>       There are several different types of names in the root of the
>       Domain Namespace:
> It would be beneficial to phrase this as a problem, as in what
> issues the fact that there are different types causes.
> Also in the same section:
>      The RFC 6761 process took more than ten years from
>      beginning to end
> Was name allocation part really 10x more than the rest of
> the protocol development? I was not paying much
> attention to the topic at the time, but I thought there
> also other issues. Also in fairness, mentioning the
> .onion process might be a more representative
> sample. (But I’m not disputing the point of this
> problem, it is real. Just wondering if we can be more
> accurate about the description.)
> Finally, on -alt: For the record, and realising the
> extensive discussion that the WG has had on
> these topics, but I was a bit surprised by the
> choices in -alt to not have a registry and to
> use “alt” (which I associate with some Usenet
> groups, showing my age). I’m quite fine with the
> WG’s recommendations, however.

I'm at another conference (ICANN) , so I'll keep this short.

There was much discussion on the "registry or not" for .alt, and the
discussion went back and forth, from a full IANA registry, to simply
asking IANA to keep a list (basically FCFS), but consensus ended up
coming down on the "we don't think the IETF / IANA should have a
registry" side.
The summary was that, if we *did* have a registry we would look a lot
like a *real* TLD, and would end up with all of the issues surrounding
that, like what do we do when Coke tries to register Pepsi, when
someone tries to reserve RedCross.alt, when acme-anvils.alt is owned
by Acme's competitor, etc -- and so we decided that "we" should avoid
this craziness, and that various people would likely stand up list of
things that they know about...

As for the string, I came up with ALT as both an homage to USENIX
days, and a shortened version of "alternative" -- we had notes in the
draft for a while asking for alternatives ("not-dns" was proposed, but
garnered no real feedback). The string needs to be short, easy to
type, and shouldn't give people the impression that this is a "second
class citizen" -- alt seems as good as any, and does make usenix
people grin...


> Jari
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.