In message <20160317161708.gb3...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:06:42AM -0400, Rob Austein wrote: > > > off, so we never did implement this in JEEVES or CHIVES. Symbolics > > may have gotten as far as using CH A RRs as one of the many inputs to > > their Namespace system, but that was pretty late in their corporate > > life cycle, so I doubt many users ever saw it in the wild. > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 08:03:44AM -0400, Rob Austein wrote: > > > other universities did pick up Hesiod, but I'd be astonished if there > > were any surviving instances today. > > These considerations, however, both again make me think it'd be ok to > deprecate classes formally and close the registry. > > Does anyone want to argue _against_ that direction? Otherwise, the > next version of the draft will propose that. (It's a much bigger > change, I think, and probably requires this WG to process the draft, > which is part of the reason I didn't try that before.)
There is nothing stopping a second class working. Absolutely nothing. You just have to want to set up a parallel heirarchy which does not have to be complete or maintain a lot more top of namespaces. Hesiod worked for those institutions that decided to use it. They maintained their own top of namespace. They could have use the TXT record better but it worked. Just because we can't think of a good way to use class today is not a good reason to shut down the registry. It really doesn't cost to maintain a registry that is not being actively updated. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
