Actually, there IS an escape method already defined. We just don’t use it much these days. It’s called “class”
There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class. they could/should be in their own class, like the old CHAOS protocols. So a class “ONION” or “P2P” would work out very nicely. After all it’s the Domain Name System. (can comprehend names in multiple domains, not just the Internet) manning bmann...@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 2July2015Thursday, at 20:56, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > > On 2July2015Thursday, at 18:21, Robert Edmonds <edmo...@mycre.ws> wrote: > >> manning wrote: >>> There in lies the problem. These systems have no way to disambiguate a >>> local v. global scope. >>> It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do >>> NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets >>> and no way to attempt DNS resolution. Or they need to ensure that >>> DNS resolution occurs after every other “name lookup technology” >>> which is not global in scope. >> >> I don't understand this point. Since Onion hidden service names are >> based on hashes derived from public keys surely they're globally scoped >> (barring hash collisions)? >> >> -- >> Robert Edmonds > > If they _are_ globally scoped, what part of the local system decides which > namespace to use, the ONION, the LOCAL, the P2P, the BIT, the BBSS, the > DECnetV, the IXP, or the DNS… > where is search order determined? Does first match in any namespace win? > What is the tiebreaker when there are label collisions between namespaces? > > > /bill _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
