.alt may not need an insecure delegation. It depends on whether anything under .alt is meant to be resolved using DNS.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 4:56 PM, james woodyatt <j...@google.com> wrote: > >> I would strongly prefer that we avoid the risks above by using a > special-purpose subdomain of a gTLD owned by IETF. I don’t really care > which gTLD we use, and if “arpa” is really the only reasonable choice, then > so be it. However, I can imagine a world where the Working Group decides > that “arpa” is unacceptable for whatever reason and decides that it’s > better to wait until IETF has another domain with a better name. And I’m > not ready to tell them I think that would be a very bad idea. > > > > Remember that if we allocated some subdomain like .arpa, we would face a > different procedural problem with ICANN that would almost certainly take a > similar amount of time to resolve. > > Ted - I agree that a new SUDN (.alt? draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06) would > face procedural issues, although not (in my opinion) with ICANN. We have > .arpa as a precedent and designating .alt as an SUDN is strictly an IETF > matter ... assuming appropriate notification to and consultation with > ICANN. The point is that we have the procedure with ICANN in place, > whereas an insecure delegation for .homenet has no such process. > > One of the issues that (again, strictly my opinion) that has held up > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06 is the lack of a real use case as motivation > for progressing a designation of .alt. Perhaps now, with a name for > homenet under .alt, we have both a use case and a generalized solution to > motivate designation of .alt > > - Ralph > > > > > From a process perspective, trying to get ICANN to do an insecure > delegation for .homenet is actually a worthwhile thing to do; the challenge > is that it introduces some substantial potential for delay and > uncertainty. So does your non-.arpa TLD idea, so from our perspective > there is no difference, whether or not there may be some difference for the > IETF as a whole. We will almost certainly be visiting that problem space > in the future. > > > > That said, if expedient is what the WG wants, .arpa is what’s > expedient. As I say, I am not leaning strongly in either direction. I > think that a strong argument for one choice or the other would either have > to do with .homenet being technically better for some reason, or with the > delay being unacceptable. Right now I don’t think we’re under that kind > of time pressure, which is why I’m not more exercised about the possibility > of a long delay in getting .homenet delegated. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > homenet mailing list > > homenet@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
