On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories) '
<draft-jabley-sink-arpa-02.txt> as a BCP
I would like to see a requirement (or at least a recommendation)
that DNS or application software must/should not have any special
knowledge of the fact that SINK.ARPA does not exist; they should
discover its nonexistence when and if they try to follow a reference
to the name, in the same way that they discover the nonexistence
of any other domain names.
In the examples, I would like to see reinforcement of the above
principle. For example, the "should" in "Installing an MX record
... should cause compliant MTAs to ..." is a prediction about the
behaviour of compliant MTAs when encountering *any* nonexistent
domain name; it is not a requirement for special treatment of the
SINK.ARPA name, but some people might interpret the exmple as a
requirement for special treatment.
I don't like the name SINK much; calling something a sink implies
that traffic can be sent to it, and that such traffic will be read
and discarded, but that's not what's going on here. I prefer
NONEXISTENT.ARPA or some variation on that theme.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf