Stephen Farrell wrote on 2022-08-18 12:43:
Hiya,
On 18/08/2022 20:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
i don't think the .ALT draft is going to move forward without such
change, so the distinction will be between .ALT as proposed and .ALT
as evolved, not between .ALT and some other SUDN.
I think I agree. But to check: are we saying that the .alt
I-D ought be changed (possibly outside dnsop) so that there's
an IANA registry for one level of name beneath .alt with "RFC
required" as the requirement for adding an entry? (So those
RFCs could come from the IETF, IRTF, ISE etc. at present.)
i don't know (nor do i suspect) (for or against) that it would have to
occur outside of dnsop. we are the catch-all wg for dns nowadays;
anything not delegated elsewhere (like dprive) seems to come here.
and i don't know whether warren agrees with the 2LD.ALT vision. as the
author of the current .ALT draft his opinion should matter to us.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
