John,
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 12:25 -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
for the record, sink.arpa document was my idea and Joe volunteered to help
it has nothing to do with his day time job but is related to something that
Joe cares about, having explicit documentation of special cases.
In that case, could you work with him to add language to the draft that
explains why SINK.ARPA provides something usefully different from
FOO.INVALID?
The draft has this language:
Various top-level domains are reserved by [RFC2606], including
"INVALID". The use of "INVALID" as a codified, non-existent domain
was considered. However:
o INVALID is poorly characterised from a DNS perspective in
[RFC2606]; that is, the specification that INVALID does not exist
as a Top Level Domain (TLD) is imprecise given the various uses of
the term TLD in policy forums;
o the contents of the root zone are derived by interaction with many
inter-related policy-making bodies, whereas the administrative and
technical processes relating to the ARPA zone are much more
clearly defined in an IETF context;
o the use of ARPA for purposes of operational infrastructure (and,
by inference, the explicit non-use of a particular name in ARPA)
is consistent with the purpose of that zone, as described in
[RFC3172].
The reason I keep harping on this is that this looks to me a lot more like
a documentation problem than a technical problem.
The first bullet might be considered a documentation problem, but the
other two are not. You may not think they are valid, but that is a
separate discussion, right?
--
Shane
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf