sorry, that second reference should have also been RFC 2826
neither the word "Maintaining" nor "architectural" are present in 2826
according to the search function in Chrome.
Adrien
------ Original Message ------
From: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org>; "dnsop@ietf.org"
<dnsop@ietf.org>
Sent: 1/04/2016 9:25:07 a.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01
------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Cc: "adr...@qbik.com" <adr...@qbik.com>
Sent: 1/04/2016 12:31:53 a.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01
On 30 Mar 2016, at 18:49, John Levine wrote:
Isn't it a little late to be refighting this argument?
+1.
I guess now we have some hindsight maybe we could learn from the
experiences with .onion and maybe look differently at a proposal for
.alt.
Folks: this thread is about a specific document, not every other thing
we have discussed before now. If you want to rediscuss (as I sometimes
do), please at least reference in the document where your argument
fits. That way, the document authors can maybe amend the document if
there is consensus to do so.
Well I would start with what is presented as a quote from RFC 2826
which isn't actually in RFC 2686 and which seems to be the basis for a
claim of even doing a special use names registry at all.
In Section 4. Architectural considerations
"Maintaining a globally-unique public namespace that supports different
name resolution protocols is hence an architectural requirement..."
Adrien
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
