Borrowing a snippet from the operational community (h/t Chris Morrow). If one replaces “subnet” with “domain”…
—— this is really a form of: "A subnet should contain all things of a like purpose/use." that way you don't have to compromise and say: "Well... tcp/443 is OK for ABC units but deadly for XYZ ones! block to the 6 of 12 XYZ and permit to all ABC... wait, can you bounce off an ABC and still kill an XYZ? crap... pwned." segregation by function/purpose... best bet you can get. —— So I -think- we are on the same page here, although I would replace your use of the phrase, “name space” with domain. We have empirical evidence of multiple domains using the same name space. (Fred Baker persuaded me that there is a single name space, but we partition/segregate by function/purpose). The same name space for UUCP, CHAOS, Internet, Onion, etc… just different domains. manning bmann...@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 3July2015Friday, at 14:58, Patrik Fältström <p...@frobbit.se> wrote: > On 3 Jul 2015, at 20:11, manning wrote: > >> I guess my question here is, what would prevent House Finch Feathers OY from >> applying for the DNS(IN) string ONION from ICANN because they want that as a >> TLD in the IN class? > > Nothing, if that is the goal, which I claim it is not. > > The goal is to ensure that portion of the name space, rooted at ONION, is > _not_ existing the portion of the name space reachable by the normal DNS. To > ensure the name space is properly partitioned. > > Patrik > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
