On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect that there would be fewer roadblocks involved in choosing an anchor > ALT.ARPA than ALT, since ARPA is under the control of an IETF family member > while the root is controlled by distant cousins. If I'm right that this > proposal is for future, as-yet-unknown applications, then the choice of > anchor should be arbitrary; it feels in that case like the path of least > resistance is the right one.
It really shouldn't be difficult to make this work, although if .ALT is already spoken for a different name might be needed. If it is in fact difficult, then RFC 6761 is pretty pointless. I agree with your other point, though—this may be useful for future efforts, but doesn't address the same problem as the other two documents we've talked about. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
