Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > there are perhaps more than three, and some might not be yet known by those > who will > want them. the reason why some part of the DNS namespace should be reserved > in the > form, "shall never be allocated by IANA", is not because we cannot think of a > good > enough and present cause why such a thing may be desirable.
Fair enough, but what you are suggesting seems to be quite different from what this draft is suggesting. You seem to be talking about reserving for future use, or for lab environments that never connects to any other part of the Internet, whereas this draft is just suggesting that everyone should use these ISO 3166 reserved codes as a 192.168 free-for-all instead of .lan or .home or whatever they are currently squatting on. I.e. the proposed use case is already widely deployed and known to be a bad idea. The intro to this draft talks about things like x- which has been deprecated since RFC 6648. It mentions some situationw where .test or ..invalid would seem to be the right things to use, but it doesn't say why not. It lists a bunch of TLDs that are being squatted by devices that ought to move to home.arpa instead, but doesn't say why we have given up on that idea after only a couple of years, or why we should expect them to move to ISO 3166 reserved codes when they haven't moved to home.arpa. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease, and aggression _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
