On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > On 12 Mar 2018, at 11:58, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <rol...@letsencrypt.org> > wrote: > > > After a number of discussions I’m interested in returning to the original > > concept as it simplifies a number of use cases that this document is > > intended to support but am still not sure whether or not this would be > > widely considered ‘ok’ by DNS folks. Obviously it’s entirely possible to do > > this as these child zones are delegated to users and they _can_ put > > whatever they want in them. Does this WG have strong opinions on whether we > > should/shouldn’t do this for technical reasons or we just being a bit too > > strict in our reading of 3172? > > I think that if Tony can be d...@dotat.at, surely I can be > jab...@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa. > > A zone is a zone. ARPA is only special by convention, not by protocol. >
Sure. Extra data, people in less stocked address networks have being following BCP20 with the extra trick of putting delegations and associated glue inside the same in-addr.arpa zone for ages. Fred _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
