On 08.11.22 10:42, Eliot Lear wrote: > As mentioned in the dnsop meeting the proposed change would be to remove the > following sentences in Section 2: > > OLD: > > Alternative namespaces should differentiate themselves from other > alternative namespaces by choosing a name and using it in the label > position just before the .alt pseudo-TLD. For example, a group > wishing to create a namespace for Friends Of Olaf might choose the > string "foo" and use any set of labels under foo.alt. > > OLD: > > They should attempt to choose a label that they > expect to be unique among similar groups and, ideally, descriptive. >
IMO this should also be struk. If the WG decides to not govern the namespace, then this implied or recommended governance is only confusing if there is an effort to govern it externallly. For one: Why only one label per group and not two? Three? Ten? All ASCII? It is unclear what this means if the spirit of draft is what matters here. So, I think this should be struk and what happens under .alt will happen. I do not think you can have both: Not set a governance inplace for the namespace through a registry and set down (albeit not binding but implied) rules/recommendations. BR Martin > > This comes under the "do/do not" approach, and the WG has chosen to "do not" > as far as a registry is concerned. > > Regards, > > Eliot > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
