Re: new DNS classes

i think avoiding icann is a red herring.  if the draft in question had
done a decent job of exploring the taxa of needs for name resolution
outside of the 'normal' topology, we would have the start of a base on
which to discuss this.

randy

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, (continued) Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, Ted Lemon Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, william manning Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, Ted Lemon Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, Paul Vixie new DNS classes, Jim Reid Re: new DNS classes, Ted Lemon Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes, Paul Vixie Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes, David Conrad Re: new DNS classes, John C Klensin Re: new DNS classes, Paul Vixie Re: new DNS classes, Randy Bush <= Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes, David Cake Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes, Nico Williams Re: new DNS classes, william manning Re: new DNS classes, Nico Williams Re: new DNS classes, Phillip Hallam-Baker Re: new DNS classes, John C Klensin Re: new DNS classes, Nico Williams Re: new DNS classes, Randy Bush Re: new DNS classes, shogunx Re: new DNS classes, Mark Andrews