> On Feb 1, 2018, at 20:27, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 3:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> I think that this is an example of attempting to
>> do so: to make a name that already appears today in the DNS
>> (localhost) go away.
> Okay, but this simply isn't true.   I think you actually responded to the dig 
> traces I sent earlier.   The root servers securely deny the existence of 
> localhost.  Existing practice is that localhost does not appear in the DNS.   
> The fact that the RFCs currently differ from existing practice is a problem 
> that the current document is trying to solve.

Entertaining though it is to watch everybody talk across each other, I'm 
running short on popcorn.

Can we take a brief pause to acknowledge that "the DNS" as a phrase is highly 
ambiguous and think about whether we mean the protocol, any particular 
implementation, any particular installation or the namespace (and if so, which 
one, since there are many, even if our context is a single Root Server System 
serving a single Root Zone, note capitals, which I think it should be).

DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to