On 15.08.22 22:22, Paul Wouters wrote:
Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-15 11:49:
...
So, from my authors hat, I would appreciate FCFS; ideally also
existing
RFC/Other Specification + Implementation(s) for a registration in the
registry.
"existing RFC" means all alternative name resolutions have to flow
through either the IETF or ISE. That is not something the IETF would
want to take on I think.
I truly don't think there are going to be a great many of these, but if
they are reasonably well specified and don't pose major security
concerns, they fit the bill for RFCs, either as independent or standard,
depending on how the authors, the IETF, and the ISE feels in a
particular situation.
Eliot
"Other specification" would likely lead to many copy & paste drafts
based on the first draft that is used to get an entry in .alt, with
only the name changed.
If an implementation is required, we will see many github forks with
just a name change.
Meanwhile, IANA will have to host 60M entries in the .alt registry.
I guess we could prevent draft--alt-name-cocacola if we consult the
Trademark Clearing House, but maybe this is a clear signal that we
are turning the IETF into ICANN and it is time to take a step^Wleap
back.
The IETF cannot bear the burden of managing or policing a non-IETF
namespace war, even handling a FCFS registry will take too many
resources.
Paul W
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
