ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2010-01-04 23:59:02

On 2010-01-04, at 21:50, John R. Levine wrote:

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?

It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the motivation for adding 
SINK.ARPA when its semantics and operations, at least for clients, appear 
identical to whatever.INVALID.

I don't know that I have anything much to add to my previous answers to that 
question.

        Also, if your goal is that applications not have special logic
for sink.arpa you should *say* that:

Yeah.  As far as I know, it is quite uncommon for applications to hard code 
treatment of .INVALID.  But you seem to be saying that they do, and that 
causes problems that SINK.ARPA would solve. Tell us what they are.

I fear you may be confusing me with someone else. Where did I say that 
applications hard-coded special handling of .INVALID?


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

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