So I think this discussion might benefit from also remembering that we have a decades-long and widely deployed history of IETF standard name forms that use the same name syntax as domain names that may or may not be related to names used in the DNS.
Kerberos [1] does exactly that. And the sky never fell, nor has anyone had to pay large numbers of currency units to pick a kerberos realm name afaik. I'm not saying this solves the conundrum, but I do assert that this fact invalidates some arguments to the effect that the IETF cannot standardise another "global" name form using the same syntax because of problems that may or may not be caused by overlaps in the name spaces - we've not had critical problems with doing just that for nearly 30 years. (Since RFC1510.) Cheers, S. [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4120#page-55
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
