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