On Aug 23, 2022, at 8:50 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that is helpful to communicate expectations,
Is the suggestion that the non-DNS protocol follow the DNS wire format and/or presentation format now an expectation? This seems like a long jump. The purpose of .alt is to let anyone do what they want with non-DNS protocols. Expecting them to use the DNS wire format and/or presentation format limits the value of .alt and will cause developers who don't use them to continue to want to squat on TLDs. This doesn't help the DNS community. > and also help minimize people accidentally hurting themselves on sharp > corners. If someone is reading this document before they develop their non-DNS protocol, we would be much better off telling them to use the DNS. THey are already in sharp corner land. > I see no downside to suggesting using names that are more likely to work (I > also personally think that it is cleaner and easier for developers and humans > to be able to more easily recognize names than "oh, here is a string that > ends in .alt… I wonder where it begins :-)) If it's just a suggestion, it should go into its own document. This document is how .alt works, not how we want folks to develop non-DNS protocols. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
