On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:10:31PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Indeed, .onion, .zkey and .gnu do not use the DNS at all. They need > domain names but not the DNS.
Nonsense. The very abstract says, "[C]ompatibility with applications using DNS names is desired…." The hard lesson of mDNS and all these other semi-successful attempts to glue into DNS space without tripping over all the same old DNS limitations is that, once you offer people domain names, you convince them they have a name that they can use in a protocol slot, and they will. It's clear to me, however, that I'm going to have to read the referenced documents more closely. I have a sneaking suspicion that the names actually _aren't_ like DNS names in some ways, and that they won't work if they're used in DNS protocol slots. But if the goal really is to reserve the namespace and _never_ have DNS for these things, then the special handling in draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00 is wrong. It ought instead to be a mirror of the handling of .invalid in RFC6761. I'd be way less concerned about proceeding with these registrations if that were the goal. Nobody can reasonably object to avoiding colliding namespaces, given what's already going on with the "name collision" work in this round of TLD expansion. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
