On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 8:21 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>So, I have 2 drafts that I'd really appreciate feedback on - one of
>>the is the .alt TLD document (which many of y'all have already read):
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-01
>
> This brings the delightful semi-anarchy of Usenet to the DNS, which is
> not necessarily a bad thing. (Usenet still works pretty well if you
> ignore the alt.* groups.)
>
> I get the impression that the plan is that .alt is for things like
> .onion that are implemented completely outside the DNS in application
> specific ways, and would have to be intercepted at a layer no lower
> than a stub resolver and probably higher.
Yup. This is primarily for those sorts of things that use a browser
plugin / DNS shim / custom stub.
> Would it also be
> appropriate for the sort of link-local names people typically do with
> .home that often resolve A or AAAA records with addresses only locally
> visible?
Personally I don't really think so -- I think that the
draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-01 solution (which reserves
"domain", "lan", "home", "corp", "localdomain" and "mail") is a better
alternative. This, combined with some guidance ("You should consider
using a subdomain of a domain under your control (e.g
home.example.com). If you are building a disconnected network, you can
use .localdomain (or .home or something). Chances are, someday this
will be connected to the Internets, and you'll wish you'd used a
subdomain. Don't say we didn't warn you." :-)) seems cleaner.
Actually, I think that we should have a separate draft saying basically this.
W
>
> R's,
> John
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
