Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call?

> On 10/24/2022 10:17 AM EDT Ben Schwartz > 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

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call?

> On 10/24/2022 10:17 AM EDT Ben Schwartz > 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 > You can't use the "+" in the scheme component of

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call?

> On 10/21/2022 12:09 PM EDT Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Sadly, we almost > need two .alt name spaces: one which is explicitly > not-registry-controlled, and one which is. > Who is 'we' in the above sentence? ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call?

Sounds like some people want .alt to be the internet police. Nobody wants it except like 5 people not the entire world. > On 10/20/2022 8:01 AM EDT Eliot Lear wrote: > > > Hi Vittorio > > On 20.10.22 13:19, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > But IANA is not the registry for everything under the

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-17

> On 08/24/2022 11:27 AM EDT Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > If the application decides that the user expectation is that "example.ch.Alt" > IS "example.ch.alt", then the application is invited to make the user happy > accordingly. I see. I understand now. You don't need the IETF for

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-17

> On 08/23/2022 5:00 PM EDT Joe Abley wrote: > > I may have missed something (I have been trying very hard) but it seems a > little weird for the wire format for a definitively non-existent domain name > to be specified at all, to be honest; I agree with Joe and its already been pointed out

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

> On 08/22/2022 3:46 PM EDT Timothy Mcsweeney wrote: > > Martin, > You should talk to Eliot about using the Drop# URI. I think he is getting > ready to push it upstream anyways and you could potentially just add it to > your draft. Then you would have

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

Martin, > On 08/22/2022 3:17 PM EDT Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > I mean, https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml > looks ok because "URN Namespace" is well-defined as a readable string with a > specific encoding. You should talk to Eliot about using the Drop#

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

> On 08/22/2022 2:01 PM EDT Ray Bellis wrote: > > You can't have a "root" label in the middle of a domain-style name, > because the presence of the length == 0 byte for the root label is what > marks the _end_ of the name parsing sequence. Sorry, I guess I meant authoritative name server for

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

Inline > On 08/22/2022 1:07 PM EDT Ray Bellis wrote: > Since this came up earlier in the thread(s), I would also strongly > advise that users of .alt do not stray from the DNS standard Why would they do that? And why wouldn't they just serve up their own root from within a subdomain they

Re: [DNSOP] On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

> On 08/18/2022 10:17 PM EDT Ben Schwartz > wrote: > > Perhaps you haven't been following the W3C DID process [1]? The > "registrable .alt" proposal closely resembles the functionality of the DID > "method" system, and you can see the registrations that have poured in > there [2]. I note

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

Brian, > On 08/17/2022 7:56 PM EDT Brian Dickson wrote: > > (Dots between and after names are moot and meaningless, only relevant in the > “presentation” format. The specification _is_ in the presentation format so those dots and their location are relevant here. Thank you for

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

> On 08/17/2022 3:24 PM EDT Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > The last bullet in feels like > this draft is part of the DNSOP charter. That's why the WG adopted the draft > and it made it to WG Last Call. I read that as the second sentence of #6 is

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

> On 08/17/2022 2:14 PM EDT Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > The Intro says" the rightmost label, to signify that the name is NOT rooted > > in the DNS, and that it should NOT be resolved using the DNS protocol. > > Isn't that a new root called Alt? > > It might or might not be, depending on what

[DNSOP] ALT root

/17/2022 11:01 AM EDT Ray Bellis wrote: > > > On 17/08/2022 15:56, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote: > > > But this part is super-genius "These ".alt" names are defined by > > protocol specification to be nonexistent" I had no idea you could > > specify

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

Paul, The Abstract says "a TLD label in non-DNS contexts". Non-dns is outside the root right? The Intro says" the rightmost label, to signify that the name is NOT rooted in the DNS, and that it should NOT be resolved using the DNS protocol. Isn't that a new root called Alt? Maybe it was the

Re: [DNSOP] Anything goes in ALT, was On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

Hi Warren, Are you proposing dot Alt, or are you proposing dot Alt dot.? It would seem to me that a new naming system like the GNS that wants to be outside the DNS would want its own root too, like just Alt for example. You could always reel it back in later right? You know, interoperability

[DNSOP] On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

Hi Warren, Are you proposing dot Alt, or are you proposing dot Alt dot.? It would seem to me that a new naming system like the GNS that wants to be outside the DNS would want its own root too, like just Alt for example. You could always reel it back in later right? You know,