In article <20180108133402.mxwlqjxmljczt...@nic.fr> you write: >> I assume I missed a discussion of what problem this solves -- is it >> in the list archives? > >Yes. Added to the future version of the draft but, basically, it is >draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root. Some people remarked that we don't even >have an EPP mapping for DNAME. It is not the biggest obstacle to >draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root but this new draft >draft-bortzmeyer-regext-epp-dname is an attempt to lift it.
Now I'm confused. I can see the point of a DNAME from .local to empty.as112.arpa, and maybe a few poisoned 2LDs to empty.as112.arpa, but DNAME'ing anything else in a TLD or 2LD is asking for misery since the semantics of DNAME are a poor match for people who want two name trees to be "the same." I'm not sure how practical this is, but I'd be much more comfortable with an EPP mapping that only mapped to empty.as112.arpa. R's, John _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
