On 2/4/14, 12:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:54:41PM +0000, > [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 112 lines which said: > >> maybe we should consider to discuss the principles under which TLDs >> can be reserved for special use and consider a re-spin or an update >> to RFC6761. > > So, RFC 6761 was written just to allow Apple to register .local and, > once it is done, we close the door to new registrations?
That in and of itself would be a bit of a moral hazard. it's plausible that this one case is simply more clear cut (certainly in the minds of the authors) then others. I don't believe that we did this (6761) so that we could treat this as a one-off event. it's my personal opinion that application specific namespaces should be treated differently in some way, if resolver libraries are being asked to make a decision on the basis of .tld how to handle a query we gone down an extensibility rathole that's hard to get out of. > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
