On 2009-10-21, at 09:39, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:34 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Indeed LOCAL.ARPA would need to be unsigned.
Not really. Why would it need to exist in the public tree at all?
All we need is agreement from both ICANN and IETF that LOCAL.ARPA is
reserved and not to be delegated in the official tree.
Entries in the ARPA tree are (now) only created by the IAB or a
protocol action. ICANN merely implements what we're told. I'd
suggest an IANA considerations section that simply said that
"LOCAL.ARPA" is reserved and must not be delegated.
This is already in the draft. It makes use of the registry proposed by
Olafur and me for use by SINK.ARPA.
Note that the draft specifies that LOCAL.ARPA *not* be delegated, not
that any change be made to the ARPA zone. The document further
requests approval from the IAB in section 9. All procedural bases seem
well-covered here (to the extent that the SINK.ARPA proposal has legs).
Joe
...
8. IANA Considerations
This document directs the IANA to add the following record to the
ARPA Reserved Names Registry [I-D.jabley-sink-arpa]:
+------------+----------------------+---------
+---------------------+
| Name | Purpose | RRTypes |
Reference |
+------------+----------------------+---------
+---------------------+
| LOCAL.ARPA | Locally administered | NONE | This
document |
| | infrastructure | | (RFCXXXX) S.
3 |
+------------+----------------------+---------
+---------------------+
...
9. IAB Considerations
The addition of "LOCAL.ARPA" to the ARPA Reserved Names Registry
requires IAB approval.
...
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
