On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 01:15:06PM +0200, Peter Koch wrote:
> (2) is covered in the IANA considerations section but while that section
> refers to a formal policy it does not offer guidance for review.
> We should capture the considerations from the most recent as well as
> previous discussions like this:
>
> "Additions to the registry will not have and instantly relieving
> effect on those authoritative servers otherwise targetted with
> the queries to locally served zones, it can be expected that
> implementations will refresh the list of zones to serve occasionally
> or based on their update cycles. For the same reason it can not
> be expected that deletions from the registry will allow the
> removed domain name to be resolved on the public Internet any time
> after such removal."
"ANY TIME"?? ever?
how about "... deletions from the registry will allow the domain
names to be resolved on the public Internet at some reasonable
time after removal from the registry."
>
> Regarding (3), while it is useful to seed the registry as broad as
> possible, it is safe to err on the side of refusal that to "poison"
> a prefix by essentially making it non-reverse-mappable.
> That said, there is consensus to drop section 4.7 and not to add
> the ORCHID prefix (resp. its reverse mapping domain name) to the registry.
>
> On a more editorial side, the document should state its threefold purpose
> in the introduction.
>
> The -14 version should then be ready to go to the AD together with the
> two AS112 drafts as a bundle, meking the cross references resolvable.
>
> -Peter (with hat and Stephen's advice)
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
