Hi authors, WG,
Here are my AD review comments on -21 of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. They are
all minor/nit comments, meaning that I'll leave it to the authors discretion as
to how they want to handle these comments.
Minor level comments:
(1) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
Groups wishing to create new alternative namespaces may create their
alternative namespace under a label that names their namespace under
the .alt pseudo-TLD. The .alt namespace is unmanaged.
This seems slightly strong given that the ISE draft is planning on setting up a
registry somewhere. So, perhaps "The .alt namespace is not managed by the IETF
or IANA"?
(2) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
This document
does not define a registry or governance model for the .alt
namespace. Developers, applications and users should not expect
unambiguous mappings from names to name resolution mechanisms.
Is "Developers, applications, users should not expect unambiguous mappings" a
bit strong? A possible alternative could be: "Developers, applications and
users are not guaranteed to have unambiguous mappings from names to name
resolution mechanisms."
(3) p 3, sec 2. The alt Namespace
Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs
may choose to move under the .alt pseudo-TLD, but this is not a
requirement.
I was wondering whether we could we be slightly stronger here and use
"recommended to move" rather than "may choose to move"? I.e., I think that the
IETF position could reasonably be that we would like these to all turn up under
alt and not squat in the root namespace.
Nit level comments:
(4) p 6, sec Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes.
* During AD review, made a few more requested changes
As a minor nit, I think that these comments were during the WGLC, rather than
AD review.
Regards,
Rob
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
