Hi Christoph, Am Freitag, den 19.03.2010, 01:14 +0100 schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer: > In principle I like the idea of your package and can even imagine to > have other things like: > 1.nameserver. > 2.nameserver1. > ... > or > eth0. > wlan0. > eth1.
I was already thinking about nameservers. Interfaces are also interesting ideas.... > However,.. may I strongly suggest not to use ".current" as TLD for the > domain names (as gateway.current). > > Although it's rather unlikely that "current" will be ever delegated in > the root, it's not impossible. > RFC 2606 lists some reserved TLDs and I'd suggest to use ".localhost", > which would fit quite well IMHO, aso it's "the gateway of the > localhost". To be honest, I was expecting someone to complain once I release the code, and then I can wait for this person to come up with a more proper choice, or will at least find out where to look for proper choices. Thanks for fulfilling my prophecy :-) But localhost does not seem the perfect choice either: „The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.“ so I am not convinced. The other reserved TLDs are of course even worse (.test, .invalid, .example). What do you think? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
