Philip, On Apr 7, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-dn...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote: > However, having lived through a period where many different naming systems > where > use in parallel and seeing what benefits it brought to have to consider just > DNS, > I think a model where IETF and ICANN actively control the consistency of the > internet name space is best.
I do not believe IETF or ICANN have that level of control. The Internet is known for "permissionless innovation" for a reason. > I have created naming systems myself. And there are many reasons to dislike > DNS and do something different. Right. > But ultimately, for the stability of the internet, it is best to not do that. > Write some experimental code, write a few papers and be done with it. Then, > if you still care about the problem, work within the IETF to improve DNS. I believe the point of the special use registry is that these are protocols that are not DNS and have no interest in being in the DNS, but which make use of domain name conventions. The alternative to the special use registry is not that such names won't exist, rather it is that the names will collide with names in the DNS. Regards, -drc (speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
