Because after all if everyone does it it's still a standard even though we currently don't have the RFC reflect "the actual standard".
However having an update to the RFC exactly with these points ruled out may be good for cases like this (or for I2P, GnuNet, ...) to use as a template in the future...
Sincerely, Klaus Frank On 26.10.2022 19:28, libor.peltan wrote:
Dne 26. 10. 22 v 19:02 Klaus Frank napsal(a):I don't quite understand what the controversial part with this is, but why not just copy RFC7686 (onion special use domain name) for .ALT?Please don't.RFC7686 requires that all DNS software, both recursive and authoritative, treats .onion in specific way. AFAIK this is ignored by many. A standard that is widely being deliberately ignored is not a best standard.Moreover, it requires that non-root authoritative servers answer NXDOMAIN out of their bailiwicks, which is against all other standards and general DNS concepts.I suspect that RFC7686 had not been reviewed enough by DNS nerds before published. Dunno the history, but please at least, don't repeat it.Thanks, Libor
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
