Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Ted Lemon writes:
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 1:32 PM, william manning <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > I find Randys line of discussion mirroring my own thoughts.
> > And to answer your question above, technically, the TLD  org.  is a
> > member of the IN class, so in the OF class, it is credible to posit the
> > existence of  a org. TLD.   TLDs are per class... :)
>
> Technically, yes. Would ICANN object?  Id be astonished if they did not.
> Is there any practical value in an alternative class hierarchy?  No. So
> its moot.

Actually there is practical value in an alternative classes if only
to make the type space effectively 32 bits and implicit with that
is a alternative class hierarchy (delegation may exist in one that
do not exist in the other and they may point to other servers).

Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the
<name,type,class> tuple and how do you reach those machines.  There
is absolutely no reason why the zones <name,IN> and <name,CLASS56>
need to be served by the same machines.  There is a argument for
them both being under control of the same people.

Mark

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]