Hiya! Thanks to Suzanne and the chairs for moving things forward. On this point:
On 16.10.22 17:22, Warren Kumari wrote:
2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo-SLDs concerns me
on the basis that having the IETF “recognize” (if only by
recording) such pseudo-delegations may serve to attract unwanted
attention to the IETF’s supposed recognition of alternate
(non-DNS) namespaces as reservations of the namespace from the
shared, common DNS root. We’re still being denounced in certain
corners for .onion. It might be good to have a paragraph calling
out specifically why .alt is not a delegation of a TLD from the
DNS root by the IETF, even though it looks like one. (We didn’t
invent this problem, because we didn’t make the decision that
top-level domain labels should be used by other protocols in a way
that led to confusion. But let’s not propagate it.)
Yup. This is (IMO) the area of the draft where the consensus was the
least clear. I still think that it would be useful to have a *purely*
informational list saying "Group A says it is using string B and their
documentation is at https://foo.example.com"; and "Group X also says
that it is using string B and their documentation is at
https://bar.example. <https://foo.example.com/>net". Enough people
have pushed back on asking IANA to host this that I think that it
should be removed (and I was the one most strongly arguing for it).
Obviously it's the DNSOP WGs decision, but I won't argue for keeping
it :-)
A few points:First, absent at least an FCFS registry there will be no ability to programmatically switch against the label. If multiple entries exist this is particularly painful. If no registry exists, then perhaps multiple unofficial registries will pop up and we're in the same boat. Let's not have that. That programmatic switch is important. It allows multiple naming systems to co-exist all the way to the level of the application (e.g., end-to-end) without any ambiguity being introduced.
Second, people have been concerned about the possibility of vanity registries. Requiring an RFC puts an end to that. I don't think we want to *endorse* any particular approach, but IANA maintains many registries, and nobody has ever taken any of their entries as endorsements.
I suspect most of the burden here will fall on the Independent Submissions Editor (currently me) with maybe a little falling on the IRTF, because I doubt we will see a lot of consensus in the IETF for alternate naming systems. I think some are worried that this will change the nature of the IETF, but to me this confuses names with naming systems. Creating a naming system is no mean fete.
To address the possibility that we DO see a lot of requests, we can create different types of failsafe mechanisms. They could be any or all of the following:
1. If more than one assignment occurs within a year, no assignments may occur in the following year. 2. After N assignments, the IAB MAY suspend this procedure if they see evidence of abuse, and refer the matter back to the IETF for further consideration. 3. This group can always amend the document based on whatever experiences we see. I'm confident that there are other approaches as well. Eliot
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
