> On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 07:59:24PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Mark, I don't think you've actually given an answer to my question. >> I understood that .ALT was for alternative naming systems, not for >> DNS locally-served zones. We simply need to decide whether or not >> that's true. I think either answer is fine; we just need to pick >> one. > > I agree with this. I will say that, when I first started working on > this with Warren, it was really for the use-case where people would > tread on the namespace as a protocol switch -- we wanted a sandbox in > which things like onion could live. My memory is that only after that > did we start thinking of a sort of 1918-style part of the DNS as > well. That may have been a mistake, since as this discussion is > showing the properties of an in-protocol, in-DNS namespace without > delegations are somewhat different to alternative-protocol uses that > do not rely on the DNS at all.
Andrew - I have come around to agree that the properties and requirements of non-DNS resolution mechanisms are different from those of DNS resolution that does not use the root zone as a resolution context. I believe that these properties and requirements cannot be served by the single .alt delegation, so, in my opinion, draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld should specify .alt for use of non-DNS resolution mechanisms. How to proceed with DNS resolution that does not use the root zone as a resolution context is open for discussion. - Ralph > > 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
