Hi Olafur,
At 21:22 21-12-2009, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Correction the message should have been:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59761.html
The changes that Ted Hardie asked for does not address my concern as
my comment was about the example in Section 3:
"Installing an MX record whose RDATA includes SINK.ARPA in the
EXCHANGE field ([RFC1034]) should cause compliant MTAs to make
no connection: SINK.ARPA does not exist, and A and AAAA records
should not be used when an MX record is present."
I am aware of the operational angle and that the above has been on
the SMTP shopping list for some time. I am not sure whether it
solves the problem instead of the symptom. I won't suggest an
informative reference to RFC 1882. :-)
If SMTP is to be the topical example, you may wish to get the draft
reviewed by a mail-related working group. The shortest path would be
to drop the first example.
This draft requires IAB review and approval. The following paragraph
may require some scrutiny:
"INVALID is poorly characterised from a DNS perspective in
[RFC2606]; that is, the specification that INVALID does not exist
as a Top Level Domain (TLD) is imprecise given the various uses of
the term TLD in policy forums;"
Section 5.1 is quite a change compared to what is in Section 2.1 of
RFC 3172. The existing text says:
'The "arpa" sub-domains are used for those protocol object sets
defined as part of the Internet Standards Process [4], and are
recommended to be managed as infrastructure protocol objects.'
This proposal turns it into a registry of ARPA Reserved Names where
the registration procedure is "IETF Standards Action and IAB
approval". Unless I missed something, there is a lack of clarity
about what "arpa" sub-domains will be used for in future.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf