To publish, or not to publish, that is the question
draft-durand-dnsop-dont-publish-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alain Durand , Tim Chown | ||
| Last updated | 2005-10-27 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document aims at restarting the discussion on what a site network administrator should publish in the global DNS and what they should not. The latest attempt was documented in a previous draft [4] was was ultimately an unsuccessful effort to clarify what to do with IPv4 private addresses RFC1918 [1] in the DNS. Since then, a number of similar issues coming from the IPv6 world have arisen and there is a sense that the situation needs to be clarified by a BCP document.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)