Bill,
--On 11. august 2005 14:14 -0700 Bill Manning <bmanning(_at_)karoshi(_dot_)com>
wrote:
no you don't get it. ask yourself, why is in-addr.arpa special?
or, in the more modren wolrd... where should the enum space
be anchored, e164.arpa, e164.int, e164.bti.gov.uk,
or... we.are.all.bozos.on.this.bus.
I think you are arguing about the principle of one single "blessed" tree
versus "just let everyone do their own thing".
e164.arpa is an obvious choice if you think that "one is more equal than
others". If you don't think so, it doesn't matter - since nothing's
special, there will be 0, 1 or multiple instances of the beast (you have no
way of knowing), and the users just have to deal with the results.
this stuff is -HARDCODED- in the resolver libraries shipped with
each end system. the arbitrary change (after six years of deployed
code) from ip6.int to ip6.arpa and -expecting- a mass change out of
deployed code at zero cost to the folks "forcing" the change (guess who
passed that change off on the unsuspecting?) is enough to drive some
endusers crazy... as well as service providers.
want to rehash that debate here, too?
None of these things were done in secret. None of these things were done
without debate. They might be right, they might be wrong. But the claim
that the change was "passed off on the unsuspecting" is simply silly.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf