ok, maybe this suggestion below is weird, but... - since they are not looking at a real delegated TLD. - why not just register a URN namespace and use it as they see fit?
Marc. Le 2014-02-13 à 09:59, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 01:24:07PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: >> >> I think therefore that the ALT draft addresses quite a different problem: >> the choice of DNS-like (but not DNS) name structure for new applications >> that we don't know about yet. >> > > I won't speak for Warren, but certainly this is _my_ view of our goal. > I do not want our current proposal (which doubtless needs improvements > in details) to get bound up with whether existing uses ought instead > to be subsumed. But on another list we just heard about yet _another_ > of these "pseudo-TLDs" crawling out of the woodwork. When it was > observed to said pseudo-TLD pusher that the approach might run into > fewer problems if it were anchored somewhere else, he said that it was > a feature that it attacked the IANA root. If we don't have an > ordinary and standard place where such uses can fit, then these sorts > of vandals will have a pragmatic argument open to them. If we _do_ > have a standard place for this stuff, then at least the pragmatic > argument will be closed, and we can have a discussion about the merits, > understanding that the goal really is in many cases to attack the > orderly operation of the public DNS. > > Best regards, > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
