On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > My memory is that only after that > did we start thinking of a sort of 1918-style part of the DNS as > well. That may have been a mistake, since as this discussion is > showing the properties of an in-protocol, in-DNS namespace without > delegations are somewhat different to alternative-protocol uses that > do not rely on the DNS at all.
I think that we've seen a number of questions go by that lead to the conclusion that it makes sense to have two hierarchies: one for experimental non-DNS queries, and one for locally served zones. I don't know if we _need_ the .LSZ (or whatever) SUTLDN, but if we need to be able to have a special-use top-level domain name that has an un-signed delegation, it probably ought to be different than the SUTLDN that is used for non-DNS stuff, so that both names can have the appropriate configuration in the root zone.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
