On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:22 AM Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 24 Jun 2021, at 19:21, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> I'd also like it to say more clearly up front that .ALT is for names that > >>> are > >>> totally outside the DNS protocols, not for names handled locally using > >>> DNS protocols. > >>> It's for things like .onion, not like .local. > >> > >> Both .onion and .local use protocols other than the DNS, acknowledging of > >> course that the protocol used for names under .local is quite DNS-like. > > > > My wording wasn't great -- .local resolves to an IP address while .alt > > doesn't. > > I'm not sure that helps. Some (but, sure, perhaps not all) non-DNS resolution > protocols can certainly be used to identify IP addresses. Not all queries > under .local are for addresses, either. PTR, SRV and TXT are common, for > example. > > >> Did I miss the conversation where the working group decided to pivot? (Not > >> a rhetorical question! I am very prepared for the answer to be yes :-) If > >> anybody has a handy pointer to the relevant part of the mailing list > >> archive I'd appreciate it. > > > > If you mean draft-arends-private-use-tld, that was tilting at a different > > windmill. > > I'm quite familiar with draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld; I'm a co-author. > > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld was adopted by the working group as a way to anchor > a set of possible namespaces that had no requirements to be globally unique, > or had no "meaning on the global context" or were not "delegated in the DNS". > > In order to avoid the above issues, we reserve the ALT label. Unless > the name desired is globally unique, has meaning on the global > context and is delegated in the DNS, it should be considered an > alternate namespace, and follow the ALT label scheme outlined below. > The ALT label MAY be used in any domain name as a pseudo-TLD to > signify that this is an alternate (non-DNS) namespace. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/00/ section 3 > > The document doesn't call it out as an explicit example, but I thought it was > intended that the set of candidate namespaces included private-use > (non-globally-unique) namespaces that use the DNS, as well as namespaces that > use other resolution protocols. > > alt-tld-13 makes it much more explicit that .ALT is not intended for > namespaces that use the DNS. So this is a change from the original document. > > It looks like this change happened between -07 and -08 (e.g. "Made it clear > that this is only for non-DNS" in Appendix A) but I don't recall any > conversation about reducing the scope on the mailing list. That's what I was > asking about.
This required some archeology... The WGLC for the document was started on March 12, 2017: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/tdp-OH3cYf6B9M0Kj1i7d2n6_KE and said (emphasis mine): "Per the discussion in our interim meeting a couple of weeks ago, the editors have revised this document and the chairs are opening a Working Group Last Call. Please let us know, on the list, whether you support advancing draft-dnsop-alt-tld-08 to the IESG for publication. The document has been stable for awhile except for one significant change in the new version. *** As discussed in the interim, it now clarifies that “.alt” is intended for use with domain names intended to be resolved outside of the DNS protocol.*** With IETF 98 upon us, we’re giving this a little extra time (3 weeks). Starts: 13 March 2017 Ends: 3 April 2017 " Looking back through slides and email and such: We had a DNSOP Interim Meeting on Feb 16 2017 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-dnsop-01/session/dnsop and [0]). I've posted a copy of the slides here: http://www.owl-stretching-time.com/presentations/ALT_TLD_2017_Interim.pdf Slide 8 says: "Reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label in non-DNS contexts, or for names that have no meaning in a global context. • Text in red seems incorrect. This was intended to be for names outside the DNS protocol - like .onion" (with the 'or for names that have no meaning in a global context.' in red). The meeting summary is posted here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/23_KtO4BLQP9vZMFwA75FKEKYV8 So, the change was in response to feedback from the Feb 16th 2017 joint DNSOP interim meeting. I can look further to try and find the emails, but hopefully this is clear enough? W [0]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/O7jF1F6bgR6VAjlMzm-9TctCSXs > > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
