> > On 29 Mar 2016, at 15:46, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > > > > Fully agree. That's why, when thinking about .alt, we need to consider two > different cases: > > - Add .alt to the 6761 registry > > - Add .alt to the 6761 registry and close the registry > > To me, the second gives a much clearer picture to both the IETF community a > bout what they will be expected to do in the future, and to the developers wh > o want new outside-the-DNS name switches. > > I agree. > > Though Im struggling to understand how reserving .alt (or some > other string) will actually help. Naive or less-than-well-intentioned > protocol developers will just pluck TLD strings out of the ether > and thatll bring us right back to where we started when this .onion > thing erupted.
One option would be to have a process that essentially says: - The IETF decides whether the proposal is technically sound or not - There is a .alt domain with a registry. Protocols can go there first come, first served, as long as there is consensus that the proposal is technically sound. - Any another name, requires approval from ICANN, however the IETF will inform ICANN about consensus on the technical quality of the proposal. This way ICANN can create policy on the name part of special names and the IETF can focus on the technical part of those proposals. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
