Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2009-12-27, at 13:07, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> I don't get it. Are you saying that you think it's possible that someone will come along and overturn RFC 2606, and that that someone wouldn't overturn any .arpa-related rules?

I'm saying that the body that administers the root zone is not the IETF. Not being a policy person I don't have any specific fears, but I'll observe that the set of people who make policy that affects administration of the root zone has a fairly small intersection with the set of people who participate in the IETF.

>> (b) SINK.ARPA is a hostname whereas INVALID is not,
> 
> This is a strawman; every subdomain of .invalid, so 2606 provides something like 36^254 invalid hostnames.

OK, so in response to your third question of whether there's a difference in use between SINK.ARPA and LABEL-SET-OF-YOUR-CHOICE.INVALID, the difference is that the NXDOMAIN responses for those names come from root servers, and not from ARPA servers.

I appreciate that the set of ARPA servers and the set of root servers today are very nearly the same, but it is a difference.


Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]