Joe Abley writes:
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.
I don't get it. Are you saying that you think it's possible that someone
will come along and overturn RFC 2606, and that that someone wouldn't
overturn any .arpa-related rules?
(b) SINK.ARPA is a hostname whereas INVALID is not,
This is a strawman; every subdomain of .invalid, so 2606 provides
something like 36^254 invalid hostnames.
Arnt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf