On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mar 26, 2017, 5:37 PM -0700, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org>, wrote: > > In no sense is the domain solely used or intended for PTR requests, > > > Is anyone claiming this? If so, that'd be really silly given the contents of > the .ARPA zone is: > > as112.arpa. > e164.arpa. > in-addr-servers.arpa. > in-addr.arpa. > ip6-servers.arpa. > ip6.arpa. > ipv4only.arpa. > iris.arpa. > uri.arpa. > urn.arpa. > > Of those, only two are used for PTR requests.
Right. Its the 'but ARPA is for reverse DNS' statement which some people make. I was trying to say no. You said it better. factually. > > I particularly like that we don't actually have to do very much beyond > note it, and ask IANA to operate a registry for it. > > > I'll admit I'm a bit confused: what would be in such a registry? the things which are proposed to be in 6761's registry. things which are being defined as 'doesn't exist' for instance. And, the things which are required to exist, since some of the SUTLD problem statement encompasses 'but we need this because SPECIAL' which implies a delegation. So for both the non-delegated unique assignments in 6761 AND the unique assignments for other reasons, we would have an IANA registry to say what labels are either repudiated, or accepted and on what RFC basis. > > Truth be told, I sort of like the "home.arpa" idea -- seems to dodge a lot > of layer 9 stuff (unless, of course, the whole point is to try to resolve > layer 9 issues). I want to solve the layer 9 issue by avoiding the layer 9 issue. The only winning move is not to play. So lets not play in the root. -G > > Regards, > -drc > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
