[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs

Jim Reid wrote:

> >to their special function. Just using their names as "aliases" to some
> >address misses the point.
> 
> Please explain what point is being missed Peter. The ability to have 
> these "aliases"  is valuable. For example, when I renamed the *host* 

i didn't contest that. However, this is kinda "bit fiddling" and uses
naming by function instead of by object. Had that been the intent there
would be no need for names in the RDATA of an NS RR. IP addresses would
be fine (well, the versioning became difficult, but anyway).

> that was the master server for rfc1035.com I didn't have to change the 
> delegation. This pointed at ns0.rfc1035.com which was and is an A 
> record for the zone's master server. Name service for the zone remained 
> at the same IP address but the name of the box providing that service 
> changed.

[...]

> >So, why would all this new wisdom only apply to TLDs?
> 
> Because that was the initial context of the discussion! There appeared 

This does not provide for a justification for such restriction. Your
example above is for an SLD, not a TLD, by the way. So, I'm still not
convinced that this "new scheme" is really a good or well scaling
recommendation. 

> to be a policy at IANA of one hostname per IP address in the root zone. 
> It's clearly unworkable to insist on there being exactly one hostname 

Yes, but it doesn't mean one has to recommend to the contrary.

-Peter