At 05:50 22-12-2009, Tony Finch wrote:
What issue? As far as I can tell there's no conflict between Joe's draft
and RFC 5321, except that the choice of words in the example needs
improvement.
The wording in the draft is at odds with what is in RFC 5321. This
can be discussed in the relevant working group.
At 06:23 22-12-2009, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2009-12-22, at 11:33, SM wrote:
You'll note that we asked for it in section 6.
Yes.
The goal was to provide a set of additional requirements that the
IAB would take into consideration when carrying out the duties as
described in 3172. For example, some far future IAB might overlook
that one obscure document amongst the 50,000 that exist specifies
that SINK.ARPA should not exist, if that was the only place it was documented.
The proposed IANA registry would be useful for such a future IAB in
that it would list all the names that required special attention,
together with a reference in each case to the document that described it.
If that is the goal, the draft would have to register all the "arpa"
sub-domains.
My reading of the text is consistent with the goal as described
above. I would not object to further clarifying the goal by spelling
out that the special criteria found via the new proposed registry do
not trump the opinion of the IAB (i.e. the IAB can still say no,
even if the criteria are all met).
The procedures for registration are documented in Section 2.1 and
Section 3.0 of RFC 3172. You could reference those sections instead
of having Section 5.0 and Section 5.1.
The main parts of this draft are about the eternal non-existence of
sink.arpa. If the examples are removed, there isn't any text that
explains the operational utility. I am not arguing for keeping the
examples. The operational utility could be addressed by a project
similar to AS112.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf