On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories) ' > <draft-jabley-sink-arpa-02.txt> as a BCP I would like to see a requirement (or at least a recommendation) that DNS or application software must/should not have any special knowledge of the fact that SINK.ARPA does not exist; they should discover its nonexistence when and if they try to follow a reference to the name, in the same way that they discover the nonexistence of any other domain names. In the examples, I would like to see reinforcement of the above principle. For example, the "should" in "Installing an MX record ... should cause compliant MTAs to ..." is a prediction about the behaviour of compliant MTAs when encountering *any* nonexistent domain name; it is not a requirement for special treatment of the SINK.ARPA name, but some people might interpret the exmple as a requirement for special treatment. I don't like the name SINK much; calling something a sink implies that traffic can be sent to it, and that such traffic will be read and discarded, but that's not what's going on here. I prefer NONEXISTENT.ARPA or some variation on that theme. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf