On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:11:03AM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote: > Because that's not necessary to address the technical issue this proposal > is intended to address, and t would be undesirable for a host of other > reasons, so, you know, let's not do that.
It would be undesirable to you. It is not plain that it would be undesirable to all those pony-wanters who would argue that their "technical issue" should be fixed in this alternative zone too. We don't get to lose our innocence a little bit. > > And who gets to control this other zone? > > Same people that control the root zone now. Why? Who says? That's just wishing away the layer-9-plus issues this strategy automatically attracts. It really is an alternate root, no matter how hard one cringes from that. These issues are precisely why the IAB was so clear on the unique root. (Full disclosure: I'm on the IAB now, but I wasn't when that was written. I'm not, as usual, writing with an IAB hat on.) > Yes, but with changes explicitly limited to the NS RRset, and not > affecting any delegation content. Because we say so? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
