On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:13 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 10/24/2022 10:17 AM EDT Ben Schwartz <bemasc= > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > - How might or should this be reflected in the browser bar? > > > > > > Personally, I would treat an "x+y://" scheme as unrelated to "x://", > and > > make the distinction clear to users > > > > > > > > Does the foo+alt:// uri only go to the .alt non-dns namespace? or does it > go to both dns and non-dns namespces at the same time? > My feeling was that "foo+alt:" does whatever the "foo+alt" URI handler wants. "alt" means "escape from the standards process at this point", so while this scheme might be analogous to "foo:" in some fashion, the nature of the analogy is not standardized. (As Eliot pointed out, this may not be the best way to make use of scheme extensions.) My main point is: the TLD isn't the only place we can put an escape hatch. (Brian Dickson identified yet another.) I think that gives us the freedom to be more prescriptive about what ".alt" is for. It doesn't have to be a universal escape hatch. My favorite idea for ".alt", as mentioned earlier, is to say something like "this is the system's alternate DNS root". Names under .alt SHOULD act entirely like DNS names, except that they are not directed to the system's main DNS root (which IANA fans will hope is the IANA root). This doesn't cover all the potential use cases, but it covers a lot of them, and preserves some degree of technical uniformity across the DNS namespace.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
