[CRISP-TEAM] 2ND CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft - CRISP Review
robachevsky at isoc.org
Thu Jan 8 13:32:33 CET 2015
Thank you for the explanation. I see your point now.
There is indeed a case when such interaction is required - when
“IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” are re-delegated or moved to another DNS
servers, but it has nothing to do with the "delegation of subdomains
below...". How about the following:
Provision of the reverse DNS services in “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA”
domains may also require direct or indirect interaction with the .ARPA
Alan Barrett wrote on 08/01/15 13:14:
>>> Delegation of subdomains below the “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA”
>>> domain names may also require direct or indirect interaction with
>>> the .ARPA registry.
>> I am not sure this is technically correct and will also imply that there
>> is a stronger interdependency with the IETF than it is. Again - what is
>> the benefit?
> We need IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA services. We should mention the
> registry or registries thaat are involved in delivering that service.
> .ARPA is the closest fit, even though it doesn't seem to match exactly,
> so I think we should say that it's the closest fit.
More information about the CRISP