Hi Ted, > On Dec 13, 2017, at 17:14, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > Can you point to the actual ambiguity? The reason we said "one or more > black hole servers" was to leave it up to the operator of .arpa to decide > which black hole servers and how many of them. That was a deliberate > choice, not an omission.
The ambiguity is (for example) that "point to" is not a well-defined phrase, given that we have two documented ways of doing this in the AS112 project, and neither is "black hole server" which from the examples seems it refers to servers made available from the AS112 project, but which examples surely are non-normative. This no doubt sounds pedantic to many, but I think (a) that a certain precision is warranted in directions to the IANA and (b) given that the obvious interpretation is not possible to implement accurately (the problems with new delegations to the original AS112 servers having been well documented) ambiguity is in fact *required* in order for anything to happen here. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
