Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-22
review-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-22-dnsdir-lc-cunat-2023-03-22-00

It feels a bit weird, but dnsdir assigns reviewers for this alt-tld LC, too.  I
took this as an opportunity to read the current text more carefully and also
read more of the lengthy discussion history.

I'm very happy with how the rules for handling .alt turned out and I have
nothing to suggest there, contrary to issues I see in texts for most
special-use names.

Except a nit: I've never understood why mention null label in non-DNS wire
format; I'd personally stick to a simple formulation, reducing the whole
paragraph to just two lines.  The intention is simple - the draft does not
define anything about how non-DNS protocols handle or represent anything. 
Still, I don't mind the current eloquent formulation.

The major question is the high-level idea of alt-tld itself.  There have been
very many discussions about that, spread over years, and last call would be
quite late to significantly reconsider this anyway, unless something serious
got suddenly discovered.  My takeaway is that - while I can't estimate chances
of .alt ever getting really useful or popular (at least in the relevant
contexts), the costs and risks of this RFC seem pretty low so I'm willing to
give it a shot, perhaps partially as an attempt to deflect future discussions
on DNS-like non-DNS names.

(A couple editorial comments went directly to the GitHub repo.)