On 2009-12-22, at 11:33, SM wrote: > This draft requires IAB review and approval. You'll note that we asked for it in section 6. > The following paragraph may require some scrutiny: > > "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;" > > Section 5.1 is quite a change compared to what is in Section 2.1 of RFC 3172. The existing text says: > > 'The "arpa" sub-domains are used for those protocol object sets > defined as part of the Internet Standards Process [4], and are > recommended to be managed as infrastructure protocol objects.' > > This proposal turns it into a registry of ARPA Reserved Names where the registration procedure is "IETF Standards Action and IAB approval". Unless I missed something, there is a lack of clarity about what "arpa" sub-domains will be used for in future. The goal was to provide a set of additional requirements that the IAB would take into consideration when carrying out the duties as described in 3172. For example, some far future IAB might overlook that one obscure document amongst the 50,000 that exist specifies that SINK.ARPA should not exist, if that was the only place it was documented. The proposed IANA registry would be useful for such a future IAB in that it would list all the names that required special attention, together with a reference in each case to the document that described it. My reading of the text is consistent with the goal as described above. I would not object to further clarifying the goal by spelling out that the special criteria found via the new proposed registry do not trump the opinion of the IAB (i.e. the IAB can still say no, even if the criteria are all met). Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf