+1. I think it looks good. One very minor comment (more a question): if I read between the lines, it seems that some thought went into the use of the term “name space” in Section 3.1 regarding there not being a zone cut for ns.arpa (not that it’s anyone’s business, I suppose). Would it be reasonable to make more plain the logic for that decision? I could envision at least two reasons, but my own logic could be faulty.
Eliot > On 6 May 2021, at 20:52, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have read this document, and this seems like a fine way to separate the > .arpa servers from the root servers. > > Russ > > >> On May 6, 2021, at 2:48 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on >> draft-iab-arpa-authoritative-servers-00. >> >> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC >> within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at: >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-arpa-authoritative-servers/> >> >> The Call for Comment will last until 2021-06-03. Please send comments to >> [email protected] and [email protected]. >> >> Abstract: >> >> This document describes revisions to operational practices to >> separate function of the "arpa" top-level domain in the DNS from its >> historical operation alongside the DNS root zone. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
