> On 3. Aug 2022, at 16:46, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2022, at 12:36 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> > wrote: >> >> Having now read further I am pretty convinced that the advisory is not >> useful in the context of this thread discussion. >> Ist sais at the end that [1] was the "impetus" for the advisory. > > Reading a five-year old version of a draft is not a good way to determine the > current state of thinking. You should only be looking at the current version > of the WG document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 does not seem to be a predecessor of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ On the contrary, the first references the second and confirms my analysis: " The [I-D.ietf-dnsop-alt-tld] document reserves a string to be used as a pseudo-TLD for non-DNS resolution contexts. However, it is clear that there is a significant use case for a similar string to be used for namespaces which are resolved using the DNS protocol, but which do not have a meaning in the global DNS context. " I do not understand what you are trying to tell me? BR > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
