On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is missing in this draft doing the same for other parent-child > data, such as NS and glue records. Since we have an authenticated > parent-child relationship now, why not extend this draft to include > CNS/GLUEA/GLUEAAAA ? To me it makes sense to integrate it here, because > the mechanism will be basically identical, although perhaps some more > prevention for shooting one's foot might be required. +1. The operational implications of NS record changes are the same as for DS, even though the DNS protocol ramifications are different. And, before someone suggests it, I am *not* in favor of a kitchen-sink approach that defines some record of a random type as being for the parent. It is fine for us to specify as many of these records now that we know about (DS and NS and glue being mentioned so far), and if someone comes up with one later, they can update the RFC with a new type for the new record. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
