On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Nope, checked, no-one has applied for .ALT.... > 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. Yup. This is to primarily to prevent this sort of issue in the future... W > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
