On 6 Nov 2015, at 2:17, John R Levine wrote:
I'm not sure how toxic it is, but I agree that we are unlikely to
have
anything useful to say on the topic.
Speaking personally, I do not see DNAME toxic, but the question has
almost always been:
To clarify, it's us offering advice on what goes into the root zone
that's toxic, not dname specifically.
I get the distinction.
To the tangential point of whether it's reasonable or practical to have
DNAME in the root zone (side-stepping the issue you were talking about,
about who should have opinions about that and who should make decisions)
there was some work commissioned by ICANN a number of years ago and
carried out by João Damas to evaluate the behaviour of many different
code bases to a root zone that contained DNAME. The context of that work
was the potential solution to use DNAME in the root zone to provision
variant IDN TLDs (see ICANN board resolution 10 adopted on 12 March
2010), but the report was arguably general enough to be instructive in
this different context.
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#10
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2011-05-24-en
Additionally, there was an experiment carried out to quantify the
availability of DNAME support in the real world for AS112 by George
Michaelson and Geoff Huston. The results are documented in an appendix
of RFC 7535.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
