On 20 Aug 2022, at 2:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hiya,
On 19/08/2022 20:43, Warren Kumari wrote:
So, it is perfectly acceptable (in my view) for it to have:
Reference Name
---------------------------------
a-cool-document foo.alt
another-document foo.alt
yet-another-doc bar.alt
I agree that such duplicate names are acceptable in this registry.
I scanned the draft quickly and think it's good. (I'll try do a
closer
read in a few days.)
Only thing with which I'd argue for now is that I think RFC required
is a
much simpler rule for the registry.
The draft doesn’t specify if this registry is restricted to ASCII LDH
or not. Can I write an RFC and get #&^%&^%)(}{.alt?
How about ..alt? Or .alt? (My proposed string is NULL)
Why not allow unicode or at least some subset of it? If we want people
to use this registry for their hip new naming system I think we should
encourage developers to move away from ASCII LDH.
—Andrew
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
