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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
