Op 09-02-2023 om 14:46 schreef Paul Wouters:
On Feb 9, 2023, at 06:33, Willem Toorop <wil...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Op 07-02-2023 om 16:45 schreef Paul Wouters:> I find the valid use of the name
"invalid" to be pretty horrible. An
engineer looking at a catalog might quickly believe
the invalid is a bug where it should have shown a real domain. Why not
_catalog.arpa or something ?
We, the co-authors, actually prefer producers to use a domain they own (because
no chance on collisions with consumers from multiple producers). I've done a
commit to express that more clearly. The new text is:
``It is RECOMMENDED to use a domain name owned by the catalog producer if possible, or
if that is not possible use a name under a suitable name such as "invalid."
[RFC6761].''
A name under a suitable name such as invalid would then be
“example.com.invalid” and not as it has now just “invalid” ?
Do you mean in the Catalog Zone Example appendix (
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.html#appendix-A
) ?
The name used there is "catalog.invalid.", not just "invalid.".
You prefer "example.com.invalid" over "catalog.invalid"?
Or it could use “_catalog.example.com” ?
Yes, if we add a sentence that the fictional organization producing this
catalog is "example.com", then we could use that too yes.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
