In article <20091230172534.GB1035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, John Levine wrote: >> But I see little wisdom in adding another does-not-exist name with >> semantics not meaningfully different from .INVALID or FOO.INVALID. > >I think the semantics are meaningfully different, in that applications >are allowed to know that .invalid is special, but should not know that >sink.arpa (or nonexistent.arpa) is special. Aren't we arguing in circles here? The original proposal was for an RFC to mark SINK.ARPA as special. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf