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

On Oct 25, 2022, at 10:47, Ben Schwartz wrote: > >  > > My favorite idea for ".alt", as mentioned earlier, is to say something like > "this is the system's alternate DNS root". Names under .alt SHOULD act > entirely like DNS names, except that they are not directed to the system's > main

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

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:13 PM Timothy Mcsweeney wrote: > > > On 10/24/2022 10:17 AM EDT Ben Schwartz 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > >- How might or should this be reflected in the browser bar? > > > > > > Personally, I would treat an "x+y://" scheme as unrelated to "x://",

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

"libor.peltan" writes: > On the other hand, I agree that an analysis of how heavily the Root > Server could potentially be impacted by stray .alt queries would be > beneficial for deciding if we need to implement a defense and how. But > I doubt this is possible to estimate. Well, we do have

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

Dne 24. 10. 22 v 20:18 David Conrad napsal(a): Libor, On Oct 24, 2022, at 9:11 AM, libor.peltan wrote: The root of the DNS is a commons, supported by volunteers who are paying out of their own pocket to provision a global infrastructure. I’m personally not comfortable recommending

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 Oct 24, 2022, at 1:23 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > What this points out is that ".alt" is intended to protect DNS (at the root > at least) from the effects of other namespaces. This seems quite inaccurate. Where in the current draft does it hint at that statement? If it is there, we should

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

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:45 PM Paul Wouters wrote: > On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Brian Dickson wrote: > > > Just to expand on this idea (which I quite like), the original AS112 was > enhanced to handle new/arbitrary names, so > > that AS112 operators don't need to do anything to support being a sink

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

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:47 PM Timothy Mcsweeney wrote: ... > You can't use the "+" in the scheme component of the uri scheme. It's a > reserved sub-delim. > RFC 3986, Section 3.1: Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a letter and followed by any combination

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

Either we worry about impact on the root servers and consider not reserving the name at all because of infinite peaks through ignorance of legacy software... ... Or we worry about it and consider doing something about it and decide whether what we can do will be good enough ... ... Or we

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

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Brian Dickson wrote: Just to expand on this idea (which I quite like), the original AS112 was enhanced to handle new/arbitrary names, so that AS112 operators don't need to do anything to support being a sink for new domains. This was done in RFC7534 and RFC7535, using

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

The discussion about AS112 changes the document from "don't ever put this in the root zone" to "put this in the root zone this special way". I believe the former is wy easier than the latter, particularly for the very limited used we expect this name to have. --Paul Hoffman smime.p7s

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

Wes, Mumble. I said I wasn’t going to argue the politics further, but… On Oct 24, 2022, at 10:49 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > David Conrad writes: >>whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory. > So, the > decision made at the time was: once the WG has concluded

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

Op 24 okt. 2022 om 14:18 heeft David Conrad het volgende geschreven: > Given the AS112 approach doesn’t result in code change, would you be ok with > using it with .alt? As Brian mentioned, there are two AS112 approaches. One involves some amount of lame delegation, and the other involves

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

Libor, On Oct 24, 2022, at 9:11 AM, libor.peltan wrote: >> The root of the DNS is a commons, supported by volunteers who are paying out >> of their own pocket to provision a global infrastructure. I’m personally not >> comfortable recommending techniques that can add undefined (could be >>

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

David Conrad writes: > whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory. > > After WG LC, I propose that the WG chairs, ADs, IAB, and ICANN liaison > discuss this. My current expectation is that we probably will send ICANN > a > liaison to politely

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

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 12:33 PM Paul Vixie wrote: > > > David Conrad wrote on 2022-10-23 12:00: > > Rob, > > not rod, but i have three comments. > > > On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of > > the intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of > >

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

Rob, On Oct 24, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: >> whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory. > After WG LC, I propose that the WG chairs, ADs, IAB, and ICANN liaison > discuss this. My current expectation is that we probably will send ICANN a >

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?

Hi, Dne 23. 10. 22 v 21:00 David Conrad napsal(a): The root of the DNS is a commons, supported by volunteers who are paying out of their own pocket to provision a global infrastructure. I’m personally not comfortable recommending techniques that can add undefined (could be minimal, might

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

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 4:31 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Ben and Wes, > On 21.10.22 20:45, Ben Schwartz wrote: > > > Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better > as a scheme modifier: https+alt://... This is a common pattern for > modifications to URI schemes (c.f.

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

Hi David, Thanks, again with no hats, except for my comment on the first question. Please see inline … From: David Conrad Sent: 23 October 2022 20:01 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) Cc: dnsop@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? Rob, On Oct 22, 2022, at 10:33 AM, Rob

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

Paul, On Oct 23, 2022, at 1:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> 1) Ask the stupid question. > Again? It has already been answered many times in the negative. There are > even RFCs about it. Asking it again is a waste of people's time. I’m unaware. Could you point me to the ICANN Board resolution,

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

On Oct 23, 2022, at 12:00 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of the > intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of disagreement on > that intent. As far as I can tell, the points of contention are: > > 1) whether the

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

David Conrad wrote on 2022-10-23 12:00: Rob, not rod, but i have three comments. On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of the intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of disagreement on that intent. As far as I can tell, the points of

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

Rob, On Oct 22, 2022, at 10:33 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > As I read it, the partitioning of the domain name namespace is really to > achieve two aims: On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of the intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of

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

Martin Schanzenbach wrote on 2022-10-23 04:34: ... Name notion of a "user expectation" for names was thrown around a lot. Using +alt://example.com or +gns://example.com is actually making it worse with respect to that aspect than .alt as SUTLD, no? yes. It is as if we are chasing a moving

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

On 21.10.22 18:48, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > > > > Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better > > as a scheme modifier: https+alt://... This is a common pattern for > > modifications to URI schemes (c.f. git+ssh://), and informs the software > > that this URI is

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

Hi Ben and Wes, On 21.10.22 20:45, Ben Schwartz wrote: Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better as a scheme modifier: https+alt://...  This is a common pattern  for modifications to URI schemes (c.f. git+ssh://), and informs the software that this URI is

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

Hi David, [Still with no hats] > -Original Message- > From: David Conrad > Sent: 22 October 2022 17:40 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Cc: dnsop@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? > > Rob, > > On Oct 22, 2022, at 5:11 A

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

Rob, On Oct 22, 2022, at 5:11 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > If this was a MUST NOT, then at the point that the RFC is published, would > that not mean that all DNS stub (and maybe recursive) resolvers immediately > become non complaint with the new standard? The draft says

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

On Oct 22, 2022, at 5:11 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > If this was a MUST NOT, then at the point that the RFC is published, would > that not mean that all DNS stub (and maybe recursive) resolvers immediately > become non complaint with the new standard? That is exactly right. My bigger

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

ubject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call? > > Paul, > > On Oct 21, 2022, at 3:34 PM, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > >> If the intent here is that .alt names should never be looked up via the > DNS, then MUST NOT is the expected behavior, no? > > There is no such

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

I'm with Dave on this.  There is nothing wrong with telling endpoints, “Don't transmit queries for .ALT."  That is indeed the whole point.  Paul, you're right: we can't stop applications from not doing this, but we can tell them what Good looks like. Eliot On 21.10.22 23:39, David Conrad

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

Paul, On Oct 21, 2022, at 3:34 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> If the intent here is that .alt names should never be looked up via the DNS, >> then MUST NOT is the expected behavior, no? > There is no such intent of the draft. Ah. Then I guess I don’t support the draft and the rest of my input is

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

On Oct 21, 2022, at 3:48 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > Not putting any hat on, I do like Ben's https+alt:// URI suggestion. > As a chair, if we see enough interest in this, the WG should find consensus All the world is not a URI, e.g., % ping https://www.ietf.org ping: cannot resolve

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

On Oct 21, 2022, at 3:48 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > As a chair, if we see enough interest in this, the WG should find consensus Creating new URI schemes seems far outside the charter for the DNSOP WG. Someone interested in this idea should probably approach the GENDISPATCH WG instead. --Paul

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

Stephen Farrell writes: > FWIW I don't understand why people seem so down on the idea > of enabling other people to experiment with other ways of > playing with names. Actually, it seems to me that much of the argument has turned away from "this is a bad idea" to simply "should we have a

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

> > > Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better > as a scheme modifier: https+alt://... This is a common pattern for > modifications to URI schemes (c.f. git+ssh://), and informs the software > that this URI is special without overloading the DNS namespace. > >

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

On Oct 21, 2022, at 2:39 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > Paul, > > On Oct 21, 2022, at 1:46 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> The document says domain names in .alt “should not” be looked up in a DNS >>> context. The whole point of .alt is that it isn’t to be used in the DNS >>> context. Why is this

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

Hiya, On 21/10/2022 22:25, Paul Vixie wrote: Joe Abley wrote on 2022-10-21 13:51: On Oct 21, 2022, at 12:52, Paul Vixie wrote: it's a registry of carve-outs for use inside DNS, which happens to facilitate client development by giving agents such as browser plugins a clear activation

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

Paul, On Oct 21, 2022, at 1:46 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> The document says domain names in .alt “should not” be looked up in a DNS >> context. The whole point of .alt is that it isn’t to be used in the DNS >> context. Why is this not RFC 2119 “MUST NOT”? > Because we cannot force

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

see inline. Brian Dickson wrote on 2022-10-21 14:17: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 1:36 PM Paul Vixie > wrote: ... can you say more about why you think this? (what incompatibilities lurk?) The different anchor points are (would be?) tied to different purposes,

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

Joe Abley wrote on 2022-10-21 13:51: On Oct 21, 2022, at 12:52, Paul Vixie wrote: it's a registry of carve-outs for use inside DNS, which happens to facilitate client development by giving agents such as browser plugins a clear activation signal that's unambiguous with respect to the

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 1:36 PM Paul Vixie wrote: > > > Brian Dickson wrote on 2022-10-21 12:42: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Paul Vixie > > > > wrote: > > > > ... > > > > it's not a fight, and the internet standards community should >

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

On Oct 21, 2022, at 12:52, Paul Vixie wrote: > it's a registry of carve-outs for use inside DNS, which happens to facilitate > client development by giving agents such as browser plugins a clear > activation signal that's unambiguous with respect to the DNS. I think the conversation is easier

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

On Oct 21, 2022, at 12:49 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Throughout the document: > > The document says domain names in .alt “should not” be looked up in a DNS > context. The whole point of .alt is that it isn’t to be used in the DNS > context. Why is this not RFC 2119 “MUST NOT”? Because we

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

Ben Schwartz writes: > Conversely, I think an alternate URI-scheme is actually _more_ likely to have > good compatibility with non-alt-aware software. First, for the record: I think a URI approach is a far better solution. And I'm trying to guess at the motivations of others not using it (which

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

Brian Dickson wrote on 2022-10-21 12:42: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Paul Vixie > wrote: ... it's not a fight, and the internet standards community should facilitate such carve-outs whenever possible. ... I think your suggested

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:03 PM Wes Hardaker wrote: > Ben Schwartz writes: > > > Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be > better as a > > scheme modifier: https+alt://... This is a common pattern for > modifications to > > URI schemes (c.f. git+ssh://), and informs

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

Paul, > On Oct 21, 2022, at 10:34 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Warren and I believe that the changes in draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-18 meet all > of the concerns in the message that started this thread, and thus it is ready > for WG Last Call. I disagree that the document is ready for WG Last Call.

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Paul Vixie wrote: > see inline. > > Wes Hardaker wrote on 2022-10-21 09:09: > > Joe Abley writes: > > > >>> Normally, a registry is created when it will help the operation of > >>> the protocol. The problem here is that there's an _anti_-protocol, > >>> and

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

Ben Schwartz writes: > Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better as a > scheme modifier: https+alt://...  This is a common pattern  for modifications > to > URI schemes (c.f. git+ssh://), and informs the software that this URI is > special > without overloading

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:31 PM Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> .alt will be treated like any other pseudo-TLD regardless of the > context. > > > > Sorry, I don't understand. I believe "pseudo-TLD" here means "a name > that resolves to NXDOMAIN". > > It is defined in this very document as "A label

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

>> .alt will be treated like any other pseudo-TLD regardless of the context. > > Sorry, I don't understand. I believe "pseudo-TLD" here means "a name that > resolves to NXDOMAIN". It is defined in this very document as "A label that appears in a fully-qualified domain name in the position of

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:31 PM Paul Hoffman wrote: ... > On Oct 17, 2022, at 1:16 PM, Ben Schwartz 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > While we're talking about this draft, I would like to suggest that the > draft discuss the interpretation of URIs containing ".alt" hostnames. I >

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

Warren and I believe that the changes in draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-18 meet all of the concerns in the message that started this thread, and thus it is ready for WG Last Call. We note that there are still some people who want a registry of some sort for names that would appear under .alt, but it

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

Timothy Mcsweeney writes: > > 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? There are two camps of people that want to play in the alternate naming space: 1. Those that want to

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

see inline. Wes Hardaker wrote on 2022-10-21 09:09: Joe Abley writes: Normally, a registry is created when it will help the operation of the protocol. The problem here is that there's an _anti_-protocol, and therefore it's mystifying to me how a registry helps anything, since there is no

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?

Joe Abley writes: > > Normally, a registry is created when it will help the operation of > > the protocol. The problem here is that there's an _anti_-protocol, > > and therefore it's mystifying to me how a registry helps anything, > > since there is no way to know whether a registry will

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

On 20.10.22 12:05, Brian Dickson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:16 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > First, I would like us to continue to consult on the registry matter at > > least through the London IETF, and would ask the chairs for some time in > > London for this purpose. I would

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

On Oct 20, 2022, at 04:16, Eliot Lear wrote: > >  > As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. Wikipedia is a great reference to list them all. Even the costs of maintaining the page is decentralized without a single authority that has ownership over the page content. It’s

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

Hi Andrew, On Oct 20, 2022, at 15:57, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:40:01PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> They're asking for the registry. > > Who is asking for it? And more importantly, what will a registry do? As I > pointed out already in this thread, the

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

On 10/20/22 15:05, Brian Dickson wrote: I fear those challenges mean that GNS simply won't be possible to properly have registry entries, and without GNS, or possibly using GNS as an alternative namespace example, the registry makes no sense. Here's the problem that the GNS draft includes

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

Hi, [ObDisclaimer] On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:40:01PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: They're asking for the registry. Who is asking for it? And more importantly, what will a registry do? As I pointed out already in this thread, the registry won't be complete, it won't be accurate, and it

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

On 20.10.22 21:13, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Hi Eliot, Still employed and still not speaking for them, I have a question: On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:15:22AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. What evidence do you have for this assertion?

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

Hi Eliot, Still employed and still not speaking for them, I have a question: On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:15:22AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. What evidence do you have for this assertion? As a practical matter, after all, if a

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:16 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi, > > First, I would like us to continue to consult on the registry matter at > least through the London IETF, and would ask the chairs for some time in > London for this purpose. I would also be available for side meetings > with any

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] Possible alt-tld last call?

Joe, On 20.10.22 14:44, Joe Abley wrote: To be clear, Eliot, you're not suggesting that these topics shouldn't be discussed here, right? It's a working group mailing list.  Of course things can be discussed here.  My issue is that we are suffering from that lack of high bandwidth. Eliot

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

On Oct 20, 2022, at 08:26, Eliot Lear wrote: > On 20.10.22 14:14, Jim Reid wrote: >> IMO, it doesn’t say that at all Eliot. A fairer PoV here would be when the >> IETF gets handed non-IETF problems, it keeps well away (perhaps after a >> discussion of the merits and/or scope of that problem).

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

Hi Jim, On 20.10.22 14:14, Jim Reid wrote: IMO, it doesn’t say that at all Eliot. A fairer PoV here would be when the IETF gets handed non-IETF problems, it keeps well away (perhaps after a discussion of the merits and/or scope of that problem). As I wrote, we should discuss this in London,

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

> On 20 Oct 2022, at 13:01, Eliot Lear wrote: > > ducking that says that when the IETF faces tough problems, others must step > in. IMO, it doesn’t say that at all Eliot. A fairer PoV here would be when the IETF gets handed non-IETF problems, it keeps well away (perhaps after a discussion

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

Hi Vittorio On 20.10.22 13:19, Vittorio Bertola wrote: But IANA is not the registry for everything under the sun, it is the registry for things that fall under the purview of the IETF and are part of IETF standards. If we agree that names under .alt do not belong to and at the IETF, then it

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

> Il 20/10/2022 10:15 CEST Eliot Lear ha scritto: > > As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form.  It is > simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it.  If the IANA does not > host it, then by shifting it elsewhere this group is actually weakening > the IANA function,

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

Hi, First, I would like us to continue to consult on the registry matter at least through the London IETF, and would ask the chairs for some time in London for this purpose.  I would also be available for side meetings with any interested party, before or during the IETF.  If people would

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

On 20.10.22 01:31, Paul Hoffman wrote: > (Well, *that* will teach me not to go on vacation and not look at work email. > Or maybe I should do that more often!) > > > The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC on > > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. > > > > We’ve reviewed

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

(Well, *that* will teach me not to go on vacation and not look at work email. Or maybe I should do that more often!) > The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC on > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. > > We’ve reviewed the current draft closely and have some concerns