On 23/08/2019 22:39, Joe Abley wrote:
People have always been able to anchor their non-DNS naming schemes
to domain names they control in the DNS as a way to avoid collisions,
and nobody has seemed to think that's a good idea. Is it more likely
that someone would anchor their ARTICHOKE alternative naming scheme
under ARTICHOKE.ALT than it was for them to use (say) ARTICHOKE.NZ or
ARTICHOKE.GLOBAL or something? Even within the IETF we struggled
slightly to convince people to use HOME.ARPA instead of HOME, right?
For Homenet it wasn't an alternative naming scheme, it was a "locally
scoped only" name but still using DNS protocol.
You also wrote:
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.
Homenet names are expected to be user visible, but we certainly did
*not* want them to be under .ARPA. It was unfortunately the only
available option when the various I* bodies declined to attempt to set
up the necessary processes and liaisons with ICANN.
Ray
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
