This is not an oversight (altough I have to admin it did not occur to me that this a valid DNS TLD at the time of writing). You can see in Section 7.1 that we also use "www.example.org" in the draft. We address the namespace topic in Section 9.9. As mentioned, the draft currently goes all-in with respect to namespace squatting/shadowing. The argument is this: GNS-aware applications will likely ONLY want to resolve through GNS OR prefer GNS over DNS OR have their own logic to decide what to do with a given name.
GNS-unaware application always assume DNS. In that case, IF the system admin or user configured local overrides (e.g. for .pet or example.org) in GNS then it is the expected behaviour that those names are resolved through GNS. It is the same as users messing with /etc/hosts or NSS. In fact, NSS is one method of configuring this for GNS, see Appendix A.4. BR Martin Excerpts from Vladimír Čunát's message of 2022-08-02 13:32:47 +0200: > Interesting bit: the current -gns draft even uses the .pet TLD in an > example, which is a TLD that actually exists in the official global DNS.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
