It appears that Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> said: > 1. Conflicts can be avoided between deployments of cooperating name > systems; and
It seems to me that the key word here is "cooperating." Considering how many projects squat on various bits of the DNS name space, we have seen only one show any interest in the RFC route> I think it's fair to assume most of the rest will continue to do what they're doing now if we make them jump through our hoops. That's why we need to make it as easy as possible to tell people what name you're using, i.e., FCFS allowing duplicates. > 2. A protocol switch is created in that label (xyz.gns.alt->gns, > xyz.eliot.alt->eliot name service) This is a swell research project but it is hard. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three different places we do the protocol switch now (socks for .onion, RRs for split horizon and homenet, fake A/AAAA for mDNS.) I doubt I've thought of all the places people do it now and I am sure I have not thought of ones people might try in the future. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
