[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Dear colleagues, After some discussion, the chairs have found we have rough consensus to advance draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. The authors have been considering the WGLC comments and will post a new draft shortly. As we’ve mentioned before, the responsible AD for this draft will be Rob Wilton,

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

, for the chairs *From: *Suzanne Woolf *Date: *Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 3:26 PM *To: *"dnsop@ietf.org" *Cc: *"dnsop-cha...@ietf.org" , "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" *Subject: *WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld *Resent-From: * *Resent-To: *, , *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, Dece

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Cc: "dnsop-cha...@ietf.org" , "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld Resent-From: Resent-To: , , Resent-Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 3:26 PM Dear colleagues, This message will serve to start a Working Group Last Call on “The ALT Special

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

behalf of Suzanne Woolf < > swo...@pir.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 12:26 PM > *To: *"dnsop@ietf.org" > *Cc: *"dnsop-cha...@ietf.org" , "Rob Wilton > (rwilton)" > *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-a

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

> On Dec 13, 2022, at 18:50, Wessels, Duane > wrote: > >  > I > I still think the requirements for library (stub) and caching resolver > behavior should be stronger. i.e. MUST NOT put .alt queries on the wire. > But this is probably a minority opinion. Earlier I had said “should use

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

. RFC 8198 says SHOULD, not MUST. Not to mention cache misses. DW From: DNSOP on behalf of Suzanne Woolf Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 12:26 PM To: "dnsop@ietf.org" Cc: "dnsop-cha...@ietf.org" , "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" Subject: [EXTERNAL] [DNSOP] WGL

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Dear DNSOP, I support advancing the document in its current form. There's a broken sentence in Section 5: "Care must be taken to ensure that the mapping of thepseudo-TLD into its corresponding non-DNS name resolution system inorder to get whatever security is offered by that system." -->

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hiya, This is good enough, so should proceed. In terms of substantive comments, I can only think of arguments that have already been thrashed out so won't raise any of 'em. A suggestion/nit which I'm fine to see ignored: the text in section 4 (Privacy Considerations) isn't that clear and

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Dear colleagues, This message will serve to start a Working Group Last Call on “The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain” (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/). Due to the end-of-year holidays, we’re starting it now and will give it four weeks. As you’ve seen from Paul

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hi, Thanks for the review. On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 03:17:27PM -0500, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Editorial : > > Section 1: > > "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"? Yes. > > Section 5 : > > After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

In article

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question: > Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft > going to LC if that draft didn't say it? > > If you had a draft requesting a TLD

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

I could take it either way. narrow doc is narrow purpose? don't ref it. doc is highly visible, will be (mis)interpreted as being relevant? disavow it (which implies ref it) doc is highly visible, problem next door? Seek guidance. -G On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Suzanne Woolf

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question: Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft going to LC if that draft didn't say it? If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some sense: in or not in a registry; passed or not passed into the DNS;

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 3 Apr 2017, at 18:02, George Michaelson wrote: > >> The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note] >> which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be >> addressed directly,

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On 3 Apr 2017, at 18:02, George Michaelson wrote: The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note] which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be addressed directly, not as editorial. The note says why the ICANN delegation process is *not* used. As the

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note] which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be addressed directly, not as editorial. Secondly, The authors make a judgement call in this block that they feel requesting delegation is not required. I don't

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote: isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? No. Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case. Are you saying that because of:

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now? Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case. G On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400, >

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400, Suzanne Woolf wrote a message of 92 lines which said: > This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: > > "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ >

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote: This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ Intended status: Proposed Standard Per the discussion in our interim meeting a couple of weeks ago, the

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ Intended status: Proposed Standard Per the discussion in our interim meeting a couple