On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:50:37PM -0800, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote a message of 63 lines which said:
> This implies every time the IETF makes use of 6761, those tables of > special labels is going to need to be updated (and I suspect the > chances of this being done universally and consistently approach > zero). It seems a criticism of RFC 6761, not of the current registration proposal. If this is so, I would say you are a bit late, 6761 is already published. > Ignoring that, other than aesthetics, what is the downside of > <p2p>.alt or <p2p>.not-dns or <p2p>.arpa again? My main concern will be that it won't be easier or faster to get a <p2p>.arpa and we'll see exactly the same discussions. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
