I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The document creates an IANA registry called "ARPA Reserved Names" and
allocates the name "sink.arpa", which is guaranteed to be a never
existing name. The security considerations briefly discuss what could
happen if the name suddenly would exist and I am fine with the text.

On the editorial side, I am wondering why the authors use ARPA and
SINK.ARPA instead of the quoted writing style ("arpa" and "sink.arpa")
for DNS names, as used in RFC 2606 and RFC 3172. Note that section 5.1
suddenly uses "arpa" - if there is a subtle semantic difference
between ARPA and "arpa" please make it clear; otherwise I prefer a
single consistent writing style.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <

http://www.jacobs-university.de/

>