On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:17:21AM -0400, Kerry Lynn wrote: > The distinction I was trying to draw was not which protocol is used > for resolution, nor the degree of ambiguity in the name, but that these > names are defined within a local scope (e.g. without recourse to > recursive DNS lookups outside the site boundary).
Right, I know that, but what I'm trying to say is that merely drawing _that_ point is not enough for our purposes. To a user, these are all just names. To us when we're trying to make them work together, we have to attend to the differences, because they don't all work the same. Just "doesn't use a recursive DNS outside the boundary" isn't even enough. For instance, what about people who are installing local (sometimes-)recursors in order to get DNSSEC validation on their machines? Someone will tell them, "Install this nifty security feature on your laptop." But because Unbound has just inserted itself in a place that Apple wasn't expecting it, stuff starts working funny some of the time only in some circumstances. (I don't think we really disagree. I'm just very concerned to make sure this fact about protocols doesn't get obscured, because I'm not sure that everyone understands how many different naming infrastructures are really involved in a small network with a lot of ad-hocery going on.) Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
