Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:10:38 +0100

For what it is worth, reviewed these documents today
as an interested individual, and both seem to be OK
from my (very limited DNS expertise) perspective.

Thanks for your work on this important space.

I did have a few mostly editorial comments though.

In sutld-ps, Section 3:

      There are several different types of names in the root of the
      Domain Namespace:

It would be beneficial to phrase this as a problem, as in what
issues the fact that there are different types causes.

Also in the same section:

     The RFC 6761 process took more than ten years from
     beginning to end

Was name allocation part really 10x more than the rest of
the protocol development? I was not paying much
attention to the topic at the time, but I thought there
also other issues. Also in fairness, mentioning the
.onion process might be a more representative
sample. (But I’m not disputing the point of this
problem, it is real. Just wondering if we can be more
accurate about the description.)

Finally, on -alt: For the record, and realising the
extensive discussion that the WG has had on
these topics, but I was a bit surprised by the
choices in -alt to not have a registry and to
use “alt” (which I associate with some Usenet
groups, showing my age). I’m quite fine with the
WG’s recommendations, however.

Jari

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:20:59 -0400

On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:10 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> also other issues.

Yes, it really was.   I was a participant in that process, so I know what you're referring to, but if you review the timeline in the IETF proceedings (and I did) the numbers are quite stark.   The reason we mentioned this and not .onion is that we're talking about the impression people have outside of the IETF.   The point isn't to criticize the process, but to show how it is perceived.   Do you think we should add text to make that intention more clear?

Thanks for the review!

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:57:47 +0100

> from my (very limited DNS expertise) perspective.

Thank you.

> WG’s recommendations, however.

I'm at another conference (ICANN) , so I'll keep this short.

There was much discussion on the "registry or not" for .alt, and the
discussion went back and forth, from a full IANA registry, to simply
asking IANA to keep a list (basically FCFS), but consensus ended up
coming down on the "we don't think the IETF / IANA should have a
registry" side.
The summary was that, if we *did* have a registry we would look a lot
like a *real* TLD, and would end up with all of the issues surrounding
that, like what do we do when Coke tries to register Pepsi, when
someone tries to reserve RedCross.alt, when acme-anvils.alt is owned
by Acme's competitor, etc -- and so we decided that "we" should avoid
this craziness, and that various people would likely stand up list of
things that they know about...

As for the string, I came up with ALT as both an homage to USENIX
days, and a shortened version of "alternative" -- we had notes in the
draft for a while asking for alternatives ("not-dns" was proposed, but
garnered no real feedback). The string needs to be short, easy to
type, and shouldn't give people the impression that this is a "second
class citizen" -- alt seems as good as any, and does make usenix
people grin...

W

>
> Jari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:55:12 +0100

Thanks for the explanation, Warren. Makes sense.

Jari

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 07:50:01 -0400

> Thanks for your work on this important space.

And thank you for your review and comments.

> issues the fact that there are different types causes.

In the -03 rev of the doc (pre-publication version available here: https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps <https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps>), we moved that text up to the Introduction as background information.  Section 3 then includes specific problems that result from the fact of the different types of names.

- Ralph