Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

In article <CAPt1N1m1MbYhhnH6kp7saw8tFBoJ21=wO6dsVW8s-b-OSu+cNw@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>Don't forget names resolved locally with the DNS Protocol, like
>1.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa.   A lot of the names you describe as "toxic
>waste" are likely resolved this way.

I suppose split horizon fits in there somewhere, but the toxic waste I was
thinking about is stuff like .corp and .belkin which leak out of random
old bits of hardware and software.

R's,
John

>
>On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> >The drafts are:
>> >       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/
>> >       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-
>> special-names-problem/
>>
>> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
>> adpkja.  The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, since
>> there are a lot of other names on the Internet such as URIs and handle
>> system names, and this is about domain names.
>>
>> It seems to me there are four kinds of names we have to worry about, and
>> neither draft calls them all out clearly:
>>
>> * Names resolved globally with the DNS protocol, i.e.
>>   ordinary DNS names
>>
>> * Names resolved globally with an agreed non-DNS protocol, e.g.
>>   .onion via ToR
>>
>> * Names resolved locally with an agreed non-DNS protocol, e.g,
>>   .local via mDNS
>>
>> * Names resolved locally with unknown protocols, e.g. .corp and
>>   .home, the toxic waste names
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>[Alternative: text/html]
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>DNSOP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-