Shane Kerr writes:
Various top-level domains are reserved by [RFC2606], including
"INVALID". The use of "INVALID" as a codified, non-existent domain
was considered. However:
o INVALID is poorly characterised from a DNS perspective in
[RFC2606]; that is, the specification that INVALID does not exist
as a Top Level Domain (TLD) is imprecise given the various uses
of the term TLD in policy forums;
Hm. Then why doesn't this document supersede 2606's imprecise
specification with a better one?
o the contents of the root zone are derived by interaction with many
inter-related policy-making bodies, whereas the administrative
and technical processes relating to the ARPA zone are much more
clearly defined in an IETF context;
That can be put that more clearly: "The IETF doesn't have sufficient
authority over the root zone to publish 2606 and ensure its continued
accuracy." My answer to that is that if so, then most of 2606 is
broken, and it's necessary to much fix more than just the paragraph
that defines .invalid.
o the use of ARPA for purposes of operational infrastructure (and,
by inference, the explicit non-use of a particular name in ARPA)
is consistent with the purpose of that zone, as described in
[RFC3172].
Ie. if .invalid has to be dumped, the replacement should be in .arpa. I
can accept that. _If_ it has to be dumped.
Maybe .invalid was a bad choice in the first place. But that's water
under the bridge.
Arnt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf