On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:56:53PM -0800, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > > You'd like to think that, but sorry no. They are seen all the time:
No, that's different. Now you're saying that sometimes people use these for purposes other than what's documented, so they hand them around. If _that's_ the case, then on top of everything else the documentation in this case is wrong, and therefore the argument for the allocation is bad. Look, I'm not opposed to these allocations in principle, but if we're going to have two completely different ways of registering top level domains and they're going to be responsible to two completely different allocation bodies until the actual moment of registration with IANA, then we are going to have to be _extremely careful_ with how we do this. It's true that .local was sort of a prior example, but as Paul already pointed out there are quite significant differences in the way that emerged. Not the least of the differences is that .local got going in an environment in which most of us were in a position to assume the root zone was fairly small and fairly stable. Those assumptions are now violated, and the plans for that violation were announced a few years ago. Conditions are different, and I think it appropriate therefore to respond differently. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
