On 2010-01-04, at 21:50, John R. Levine wrote: >>> 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. I don't know that I have anything much to add to my previous answers to that question. >>> 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. I fear you may be confusing me with someone else. Where did I say that applications hard-coded special handling of .INVALID? Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf