> On 06/02/2017 16:55, Tony Finch wrote:
> > Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, that's right, with the caveat that all existing locally served
> >> zones are in the reverse space - there's no forward zones registered (yet).
> >
> > There are several :-) RFC 6761 specifies localhost, invalid, test as
> > locally served zones. RFC 6762 specifies local. RFC 7686 specifies onion.
> >
> > RFC 7534 says that the AS112 DNAME target zones should be locally
> > served, though they are not listed in the special use registry.
> >
> > The example domains are special use but not locally served.
>
> The "locally served zones" and "special use domains" registries are different.
> There is potentially scope for overlap.
>
> It's possible that some special use domains might benefit from special
> treatment in the root zone, too (".localhost" ?)I know I am late to the game but as I understand the issue (still catching up) the .alt is intended for both non-DNS and special-use DNS (expected to be resolved locally). Just spitballing but what about a new RR type to actively flag the owner as officially not-existing (e.g. NXD). These RRs could be used in *any* zone including root and combined with the special use registry (for policy) could flag the namespace as both reserved and non-existent. I tend to agree with Mark on this, SERVFAIL feels wrong. /John > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER: This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
