Paul Hoffman wrote on 2022-08-08 06:31:
On Aug 8, 2022, at 3:16 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
...
draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld and SAC113 would give the authors of the draft you are
considering an easy method to do the type of naming they talk about in their
draft. So would using a TLD that is exceptionally unlikely to be allocated in
the global DNS, such as:
#gns
=gns
(or, for a more marketing spin)
gns!
These are all perfectly valid names; they just happen not to use the LDH
pattern that people expect from the global DNS.
it's possible that web browsers could try these names using their
gethostbyname() path, and if the system library (or more likely the
browser's runtime) understands what these mean ("don't use DNS") then
happiness could result. however, there are a lot of different systems
each with its own library, and a lot of different browsers each with its
own runtime. so adoption will be arduous.
i think the ietf could define a new namespace which included the dns
namespace as a component. this new namespace would probably have to be
administered by icann, since ietf isn't going to want to negotiate with
every new "alternative namespace" provider. such a new namespace could
be differentiated with some kind of syntactic element such as #, =, or !
as given above.
i also think icann could define a new namespace which was included
within the existing dns namespace, but probably not with an unmarketable
name like ".alt" or ".arpa". let's instead imagine that it was ".ext"
for "extensions" and that each namespace provider could get a name
reservation and even a delegation point (".gns.ext") if they wanted by
petition, contract, and payment to icann.
experimentation in namespacing is frozen, and we won't evolve beyond the
concepts which gave rise to DNS unless we decide where it will fit in.
that's a vital problem, regardless of the merits of any single proposal.
If the GNS team indeed wants to make it clear that their naming is not part of
the global DNS, simply rooting their names in one of these TLDs (available now)
or one of the ones from draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld or SAC113 (possibly available
in the future) would avoid all of the interoperability problems they create in
the draft.
+1.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
