> On 22 Mar 2017, at 11:40, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: >> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> RFC 3172 was written in 2001… >> >> RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym: Address >> and Routing Parameter Area - really? > > Well, no. I thought it wasn’t rewriting anything, but setting a future > direction. (The backronym was cute or annoying, depending on your POV, but > ultimately not that important.) > >>> Respectfully, I’ve always wondered who has this problem (US or non-US) >>> besides network infrastructure geeks Of a Certain Age (yes, including >>> myself, and many IETF participants). >> >> It's a convenient tool for those hostile to USG "control" of the Internet: >> ie the US military is responsible for everything under .arpa, the US >> military's ARPA has still got some special status in the >> operation/development/control of the Internet, etc, etc. > > So the answer to “Why not actually use it where it’s technically suitable” is > essentially “installed base”? > > I don’t mean to sound flippant— I’m just trying to understand the view that > there’s a bigger obstacle to using .arpa than there is to asking ICANN for a > root zone entry and engaging with all of the resulting complexities.
Surely the people who would make comments about (say) homenet.arpa are already making comments about in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa? So is there really that great a harm in using .arpa for additional things (that make many lives easier in many other ways)? Tim _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
