On 2009-12-25, at 06:02, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
What is the actual difference between the proposed sink.arpa and the existing
.invalid?
(a) Our idea when we chose that name was to try and make the policy environment
within which the (non-) assignment rule was to be instituted clear. The
administration of ARPA is fairly clearly defined, and lies fairly clearly
within the policy control of the IETF and the IAB. The administration of the
root zone has a far greater audience of participation, and is hence more likely
to be subject to future change. Naming the (non-existent) name under ARPA
avoided this potential headache.
(b) SINK.ARPA is a hostname whereas INVALID is not, according to certain
interpretations of (I think) RFC 952. (I think I last saw reference to this
when Mark Andrews was discussing potential problems with apex MX records in TLD
zones, in the context of discussing expansion of the root zone). This perhaps
makes INVALID less appropriate for applications where a non-existent hostname
is required.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf