John,
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 12:25 -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
> > for the record, sink.arpa document was my idea and Joe volunteered to help
> > it has nothing to do with his day time job but is related to something that
> > Joe cares about, having explicit documentation of special cases.
>
> In that case, could you work with him to add language to the draft that
> explains why SINK.ARPA provides something usefully different from
> FOO.INVALID?
The draft has this language:
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;
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;
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].
> The reason I keep harping on this is that this looks to me a lot more like
> a documentation problem than a technical problem.
The first bullet might be considered a documentation problem, but the
other two are not. You may not think they are valid, but that is a
separate discussion, right?
--
Shane
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
