Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > However, given that this document only points out an option that already > exist and doesn't actually recommend using a TLD versus any other > anchor, I don't think any of that matters. I think it's up to another > document to provide that kind of advice. It's hard to see any advantage > in shoe-horning that advice into this one -- and the chances of such a > document converging any time soon, regardless of venue. seem slim
The existence of this document and the lack of any better advice will mean that the IETF recommendation is clear that the best setup for RFC 1918 networks is to use a reserved alpha-2 TLD. It isn't just pointing out something that's already there, it's a massive shove encouraging people to occupy this namespace. As opposed to the current situation where the implicit advice is that you should only use properly registered domain names, and reserved alpha-2 TLDs are only used by people like JP Mens in his test lab. https://jpmens.net/2010/09/28/performing-dynamic-dns-updates-on-your-dns/ Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ democracy, participation, and the co-operative principle _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
