In article <20170208091536.vqwftrhpole33...@nic.fr> you write: >Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real >technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the >registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to >compile automatically the code for the various cases.
Considering the vastly different ways that software handles .local and .onion and example.com and 10.in-addr.arpa, and that next thing to come along (.homenet?) will likely be different from any of the existing ones, this strikes me as akin to asking for a pony. If you just want a list of the names so your recursive resolver can stub them out, we already have that, of course. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
