ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-reverse-servers (Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones) to Proposed Standard

2010-01-04 22:46:28

On 2010-01-04, at 19:23, Sam Hartman wrote:

So, I think John is asking the questions well about the in-addr.arpa
plan.

OK. I hope the answers are helpful.

For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to
exist.

We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of the draft. I presume 
that's what you meant?

         Also, if your goal is that applications not have special logic
for sink.arpa you should *say* that: I read the draft assuming that it
was free license to applications to start doing special things with that
name and was starting to put together lists trying to figure out what
special application semantics motivated the work.

OK, that's good feedback. I can see how that's non-obvious, looking at the 
problem from an implementator's perspective as opposed to a registry operator's 
perspective.

I do believe both sets of questions should be answered in the drafts.  I
don't feel that strongly about it though; if the IESG would rather not,
that's fine with me.

Thanks for providing more information about your concerns; it was helpful.


Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>