For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to
exist.
We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of the draft. I presume that's what you meant?
It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the motivation for
adding SINK.ARPA when its semantics and operations, at least for clients,
appear identical to whatever.INVALID.
Also, if your goal is that applications not have special logic
for sink.arpa you should *say* that:
Yeah. As far as I know, it is quite uncommon for applications to hard
code treatment of .INVALID. But you seem to be saying that they do, and
that causes problems that SINK.ARPA would solve. Tell us what they are.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf