Hi, On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:52:11PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I think that it would be better to remove "global DNS". It is not a > technical definition and it assumes things like the mythical "names > operational community". I don't believe the "names operational community" is mythical, since it specifies behaviour through a formal mechanism for something that goes in an IANA registry. But the discussion of Global DNS is imperfect, I agree. > This draft is about DNS terminology. From the > point of view of the DNS, ICANN and OpenNIC are the same (same > protocols, same concepts, same names) even if their registration > (i.e. non-DNS) policies are different. I think that description is, however, inaccurate. One of those DNS operations is the public Internet name system -- the one with the root published by IANA -- and the other one is not. This is not different from the distinction between split-horizon names, where some of them can get answers from the public Internet and others cannot. It is also the way we can reasonably make the distinction between something like local., which is a domain name that is not part of the DNS; home., which is not delegated in the "global DNS" but might be in use in the DNS in some locations; and com., which is delgated in the "global DNS". I think this is an important notion that impinges on the DNS, and I think we need to be able to define a term to cover it, but if people hate "global DNS" maybe we need a different term? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
