Javascript disabled? Like other modern websites, the IETF Datatracker relies on Javascript.
Please enable Javascript for full functionality.
To publish, or not to publish, that is the question
draft-durand-dnsop-dont-publish-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alain Durand , Tim Chown | |
| Last updated | 2005年10月27日 | |
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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.)