In article
<20091230172534(_dot_)GB1035(_at_)apb-laptoy(_dot_)apb(_dot_)alt(_dot_)za> you
write:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, John Levine wrote:
But I see little wisdom in adding another does-not-exist name with
semantics not meaningfully different from .INVALID or FOO.INVALID.
I think the semantics are meaningfully different, in that applications
are allowed to know that .invalid is special, but should not know that
sink.arpa (or nonexistent.arpa) is special.
Aren't we arguing in circles here? The original proposal was for an
RFC to mark SINK.ARPA as special.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf