On Mar 26, 2017, at 9:51 PM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > I was thinking about the 'because its the (D)arpa" opposition when I > said that. I think *that* stated reason, is mostly now, a phantom. > Maybe I'm wrong on that too. Maybe its a giant political layer9 > football which will come back to haunt us, forever. Given how much of > the planet happily goes into the RIR system to register PTR records > for their addresses, I'm struggling to believe this is a choke-issue > of significance.
I don't think there is any functional problem with hn.arpa: it could certainly work as a domain under which to put homenet names. The problem is that it is not representative of what is happening. With existing uses of .arpa, I don't think this is a problem, but if in fact we expect users to see homenet subdomains, then they should look like what they mean, and they don't mean "a subdomain of arpa." > You argue a case, as a question of human interaction. You see the > domain as one which is going to require human input, human engagement. > You want a TLD because you want people to interact with it, as a name. > This is not sounding to me like an infrastructure, technical driver > for the existence of a label Here you seem to be claiming that any label that has a meaning that is meant to be understood by end users is not a technical use. This is not stated in the MoU. Essentially, if it would be better to reserve a label in the root than under .arpa, then by definition we cannot. If that's the case, where is the technical use provision in the MoU applicable? It only makes sense for zones operated by ICANN, and the only zone operated by ICANN of which I am aware (perhaps naively) is the root zone. So you would seem to be arguing that that provision in the MoU could be struck without harm. If so, why was it put there in the first place? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
