John, > On May 8, 2015, at 12:42 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >> The justification for removing home/corp/mail primarily appears to be >> "because they showed up >> 'a lot' at the root servers". Without characterizing this a bit better, it >> seems to me it would >> be trivial to set up situations to move pretty much any undelegated name to >> the "Special Names" >> registry -- just fire up a few thousand zombies to query names in the TLD >> you want removed >> using random source addresses. > > Hmmn. Is this a serious accusation,
Accusation? > or is this just channelling the > usual domainers whinging about their business plans? Neither. It is an honest question as to how to objectively identify which non-delegated TLDs are receiving sufficient traffic as to justify never delegating them. You know, sort of like how one would be able to justify a statement like: >>> I'd probably put "lan" into the same group, no doubt to the dismay of the >>> South American airline group. But thanks for debasing the conversation. > Does anyone seriously argue that those domains aren't widely used in > private networks, and that nominally private DNS names leak all the time? Depends on the name. Why do you call out home/corp/mail? Should LAN be reserved or not? What's your criteria? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
