On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2018, at 11:58, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <rol...@letsencrypt.org> 
> wrote:
> > After a number of discussions I’m interested in returning to the original 
> > concept as it simplifies a number of use cases that this document is 
> > intended to support but am still not sure whether or not this would be 
> > widely considered ‘ok’ by DNS folks. Obviously it’s entirely possible to do 
> > this as these child zones are delegated to users and they _can_ put 
> > whatever they want in them. Does this WG have strong opinions on whether we 
> > should/shouldn’t do this for technical reasons or we just being a bit too 
> > strict in our reading of 3172?
> I think that if Tony can be d...@dotat.at, surely I can be 
> jab...@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa.
> A zone is a zone. ARPA is only special by convention, not by protocol.

Sure. Extra data, people in less stocked address networks have being
following BCP20 with the extra trick of putting delegations and
associated glue inside the same in-addr.arpa zone for ages.


DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to