In article <CAPt1N1m1MbYhhnH6kp7saw8tFBoJ21=wo6dsvw8s-b-osu+...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >Don't forget names resolved locally with the DNS Protocol, like >1.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa. A lot of the names you describe as "toxic >waste" are likely resolved this way.
I suppose split horizon fits in there somewhere, but the toxic waste I was thinking about is stuff like .corp and .belkin which leak out of random old bits of hardware and software. R's, John > >On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> >The drafts are: >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop- >> special-names-problem/ >> >> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to >> adpkja. The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, since >> there are a lot of other names on the Internet such as URIs and handle >> system names, and this is about domain names. >> >> It seems to me there are four kinds of names we have to worry about, and >> neither draft calls them all out clearly: >> >> * Names resolved globally with the DNS protocol, i.e. >> ordinary DNS names >> >> * Names resolved globally with an agreed non-DNS protocol, e.g. >> .onion via ToR >> >> * Names resolved locally with an agreed non-DNS protocol, e.g, >> .local via mDNS >> >> * Names resolved locally with unknown protocols, e.g. .corp and >> .home, the toxic waste names >> >> R's, >> John >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > >-=-=-=-=-=- >[Alternative: text/html] >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >_______________________________________________ >DNSOP mailing list >DNSOP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >-=-=-=-=-=- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop