On 18 Aug 2019, at 14:29, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> 2. Names handled through mutant DNS which can returns IP addresses (.local, > .localhost, .homenet/.home.arpa) [...] > For 2, we seem to agree that future reservations, if any, will go under .arpa. I think I know what you're getting out here, but I think what we're talking about are things that are not specifically DNS-like in their protocol, but rather correspond to uses where the IETF has some skin in the game. I think it's clear that nobody has ever shown signs of wanting to anchor anything like this under .ARPA if it's a name that a user might ever have to see. The reason we might imagine we can persuade some people in the future to do so anyway is presumably because the IET has some authority to nudge them in that direction, not because there's some component of the situation that is DNS-protocol-like. Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
