Authors: I fear that Sections 3 ff. of draft-yao-dnsop-idntld-implementation-00 have entirely missed the evolution of the dnesext-rfc2672-dname draft.
The "Understand DNAME" bit, and hence the dependence on EDNS has been removed in June, and it has been reinforced that support for DNAME does not require support for EDNS0 (although recent empirical data have shown that ENDS0 support is almost pervasive for authoritative servers and recursive resolvers in these days, and, as you know, IPv6 makes EDNS0 effectively mandatory, and DNSSEC does the same). This clarification of RFC 2672 has the support of major implementors and implementations. I suppose that this evolution has made moot much of the discussion in your draft. So please could you revise it based on the current understanding of DNAME ? Namedroppers: What's the state of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname ? IIRC, there was no substantial discussion on the list since -17 has been posted in September. Are the chairs now working on bringing that draft to the IESG? DNSOP folks: Are there sound empirical data on DNAME support at large? Reportedly, DNAME already is in heavy use in ENUM deployments. I've never heard complaints from ENUM folks about issues with DNAME -- or did I miss smething? Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: a...@tr-sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
