On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 02:31:37PM -0500, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote a message of 38 lines which said:
> I continue to believe that allowing DNAMEs in TLDs is a bad idea, > and so I see no reason to spend further effort on this extension. Really, I do not understand, and I would appreciate explanations. The original use case is not for DNAME in TLDs. So, whatever you think of DNAME in TLDs does not mean the extension is useless. > With respect to DNAMEs at the top level, someone else noted that the > root zone isn't managed the same way as TLDs, so there's no obvious > connection. Already replied but see <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lGdwGFO58iJ_dYYM9UR87Er9F5c> > Since you can get the effect of a DNAME in the root zone by putting > a DNAME at the apex of a TLD as Taiwan has done, No, the goal here is to have no NS delegation (for reasons explained in RFC 7535). So, this cannot work. > it might be more productive to consider how to invent a policy to > allow a DNAME-only TLD if you're not a ccTLD. I'm not in policy, draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root and draft-bortzmeyer-regext-epp-dname are purely technical. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
