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;
Hm. Then why doesn't this document supersede 2606's imprecise
specification with a better one?
Agreed. The current bits on the wire for .INVALID, i.e., none, match
any plausible improved specification, after all.
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;
That can be put that more clearly: "The IETF doesn't have sufficient
authority over the root zone to publish 2606 and ensure its continued
accuracy." My answer to that is that if so, then most of 2606 is
broken, and it's necessary to much fix more than just the paragraph
that defines .invalid.
Here's some proposed language which I believe accurately describes the
current situation:
o RFC 2680 documents a binding agreement between the IETF and
ICANN with regard to the operation of the IANA. In particular,
Section 4.3 requires ICANN's management of the root zone to
comply with the IETF's "assignments of domain names for
technical uses", such as those described in RFC 2606. Some
people believe that ICANN or its successor may unilaterally
break this agreement, although there is no evidence to support
or refute this hypothesis.
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].
o Some people believe that ICANN is less likely to mess with .ARPA
than with .INVALID, although there is no evidence to support or
refute this hypothesis.
Also, based on recent mail here:
o DNS caches and proxies have in a few cases been observed to
replace nonexistent names with synthesized records, typically
the A record of a web server, in violation of standards and best
practices. Some people believe that noexistent names in .ARPA
are less likely to be replaced than names in .INVALID, although
there is no evidence to support or refute this hypothesis.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf