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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
