On 2 dec 2013, at 10:56, Marco Davids (SIDN) <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/01/13 17:48, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> For the record, I've reviewed >> draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00, I find it well-written >> and clear and I fully support it. Registering these names would be a >> very good idea. > > Would it be worthwhile to add .bit to the list (Namecoin)? I suggest .bit be a different draft as .bit compared to the other names actually do use the DNS protocol for resolution. Note that I am not against .bit, but just want it separate as the argument for it being reserved is different. Patrik _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
