IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sipping] Question on draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A33628C1C0 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:35:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bF+1R3LJFDKz for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EEB28C180 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o14Ka0Ll016603 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:36:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (vkg.lra.lucent.com [135.244.22.180]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id o14Ka0GP012328; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:36:00 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4B6B2FF0.5030007@bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:37:04 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB4EC49D8@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4B61E8AE.6090309@alcatel-lucent.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB4EC49F5@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4B61EEFE.3030605@alcatel-lucent.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB920FE16@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB920FE16@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:42:42 -0800
Cc: "sipping@ietf.org" <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Question on draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:35:18 -0000

On 02/03/2010 10:07 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> A follow-up question on the statement:
> "For this, IPv6 implementations MUST use a domain
>         name within the .invalid DNS top-level domain instead of using
>         the IPv6 unspecified address (i.e., ::)."
> Presumably just "invalid" (alone, as opposed to "xxxx.invalid" would be legal?

John: I think ".invalid" itself suffices, but I will defer to Gonzalo's
view on this.

Gonzalo: do you have an opinion.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email