[Yeti DNS Discuss] [Experiment idea] DNAME from .local to AS112

Shane Kerr shane at biigroup.cn
Fri Apr 22 15:40:45 UTC 2016


I think it's an interesting idea, and probably one worth using Yeti for.

On 2016-04-21 20:58:02+0200 (Thursday)
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic.fr> wrote:

> The second issue is the fact that Yeti pledged to serve the USG root,
> unmolested (at least, with the very same TLDs). IMHO, the addition of
> .local, undelegated in the USG root and unlikely to ever be, is an
> acceptable exception to this Yeti policy.

This is indeed a concern - the biggest in my opinion.

We talked about a similar concern with looking at alternate naming
systems for the root servers themselves. This seems to imply that the
issue may keep coming up throughout the project lifetime.

Personally I think it is more important to keep with the *spirit* of
the Yeti policy, which I think is that we intend to work the same as
the IANA root from the end user point of view.

But I realize that this is a somewhat risky position to take. Maybe
others have different ideas?



More information about the discuss mailing list