I just read it and on page 5 it specifically excludes .onion and .gnu as those do not use the DNS protocol (citing also the alt draft here). So this is equivalent to the .alt draft only if the private-use TLD is not limited to private-use DNS queries as investigated in the document. I find this to be quite odd as I thought this is what .arpa was for (RFC8375)! .home is even listed in the table of the SAC document and one of the motivations.
So, we would have to see what the actual proposed *use* of this private TLD would be. If it is limited to DNS, then it is of no use for alternative name systems and we would still need .alt. Excerpts from Andrew Sullivan's message of 2022-08-02 15:34:40 -0400: > Disclaimer: I work for the Internet Society but I am not speaking for them. > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 07:11:38PM +0000, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > >recommends that the ICANN board to pick a string that will never be put into > >the DNS root, and thus is usable for systems like GNS. > > This was, of course, the whole point of the .alt draft in the first place, at > least when I was involved in preparing it. I don't think any of us involved > then cared whether it was alt or one of thousands of other strings that it > could have been. The main point was to come up with something that would not > pad total length too much and that could be a clear "protocol switch". The > registration in the IANA sutld registry was suppossed to ensure the same > outcome as what is going through SSAC, but it makes no difference to me what > the characters are. Note that because of the old-timey restriction, I > suspect the characters must all be alphabetic, though perhaps that rule has > been superseded by IDNA. > > A >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
