The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record for the "root record"

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> "phil" == phil-news-nospam  <phil-news-nospam at ipal.net> writes:

    phil> So you're saying that once done, no changes can be made?
    phil> That would seem to say that DNS cannot even evolve.  I don't
    phil> believe that.  But I don't want to get into the politics of
    phil> IETF.  If I make it work, people will use it, then someone
    phil> will figure it needs to be standardized to make sure there
    phil> is just one uniform way to accomplish what people obviously
    phil> want to do.

No, I'm saying that any protocol changes have to be well thought out
and proven to have no adverse impact on the installed base or have a
clearly defined migration strategy that won't break anything. Your
suggestion does not have any of these properties. What you're
advocating is a gross violation of the protocol. And it seems the only
reason for doing this to make DNS work the way you want it to work
instead of the way the rest of the world knows it works.

    phil> FYI, my intentions are not to intermingle records.  The only
    phil> thing that needs to be done is give the CNAME answer to get
    phil> the resolving server to re-query with the new name. 

You just don't get it, do you? What's the motivation for everyone to
do this? "Let's change all of the world's name servers, resolvers and
DNS-aware applications so they can interwork with Phil's server that
doesn't conform to the protocol". That's sure to be a winner.