On Jan 9, 2014, at 11:40 AM, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Working out a timeline to complete an effort to make all of this work is left as an exercise to the reader >> >> Since it's an infinite regression (any N namespaces can be converted to a single >> namespace by adding N unique suffixes or prefixes) I think the timescale >> is infinite. >> >> Seriously. We have a perfectly fine unambiguous namespace. Enough already. > > The problem is that this issue keeps repeating, particularly in (shall we say) non-technical venues. In a private message I semi-seriously suggested someone should write an RFC that deprecates classes other than IN. However, I'm beginning to think this might not be that bad of an idea -- at least there would be a document that the non-technical folks who keep raising the issue could be pointed at... I would propose exactly the opposite document: "Want your own namespace? Here are most of the known the pros and cons of owning your own DNS CLASS." Talk about the know pitfalls, but don't assume that those pitfalls are fatal for a given scenario. Give out the new classes liberally for a few years. The result might be someone else really does find good uses for them, and takes pressure of CLASS=IN for some things that really shouldn't be in the global Internet. --Paul Hoffman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail