Subject: RE: "local" names

From: "Cunningham, Andy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:19:10 -0000

Folks

As a newcomer to this mailing list, I guess my opinion doesn't count for too
much - but I do have the task of designing how our internal DNS structure
should look.   Andrew's comment that we need a "place on the tree to hang
whatever you want" sums up exactly what I need to make the new design meet
all it's goals.

As with much of out internal DNS discussions, the contentious issues isn't
how it works, but what it's called.     ".local" implies some kind of
"regional locality", so perhaps ".intra" or the slightly longer ".intranet"
might be better.  

I don't care what I call our internal TLD, but I do care that I might have
to change it in the future if some future activity gives the name I've
chosen to something "official".

Andy Cunningham

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Brown [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 8:17 PM
To: Robert Elz
Cc: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: "local" names

>  | I have received a request to change "local" in
>  | draft-ietf-dnsind-local-names-07.txt.
>  | Does anyone on namedroppers have an opinon on this?
>
>I would prefer the whole draft just vanish into oblivion, or perhaps
>be turned into a (part of a) chapter in Cricket's book's next edition,
>as a "how you can do this if you really have to" type of thing, and all
> [...]
i think we're not looking for a "standardised way of doing it", but a
place on the tree to hang whatever you want.  and for me to hang
whatever i want.  without me stepping on your toes, or you on mine.

call it .rose then.  :)