>On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask >> the WG to choose.
The more I think about it, the more I think that they're both too long, and we'd be better off with a one or two sentence description of what we're trying to do, perhaps along these lines: * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that are handled in ways other than the DNS. (That's mDNS and .onion) or * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that should not be delegated in the DNS. (That's the toxic waste.) or maybe something else, so long as it's short. Also, FYI: >> 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS ... >This study is from before the new gTLD program. The assumption in the >report need to be tested against what actually happened in the round of >new gTLDs before it can be included as part of the fact basis for this >work. We also need information on the degree of success that the >various mitigation strategies had in overcoming possible problems to >have a full picture of the problem as it has been shown in practice. At a meeting a couple of weeks ago, I believe that someone said that the junk traffic at the roots for each of .corp, .home and .mail still greatly exceeds all of the traffic for the new gTLDs. So I think it's safe to say none of the mitigation strategies have worked. The wildcard 127.0.53.53 and such are clever, but none of the domains that have been delegated had significant collision issues to start with so it's hard to argue they've been effective. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
