On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2013-06-21, at 11:25, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Things that requite more discussions: >> 1: Is DNAME a viable alternative? > > I think it is. I found Brian Dickson's suggestion on this list quite > compelling.
Yup. It is definitely worth investigating more... > Some experimentation is likely required to characterise the impact of that > approach with and without DNAME-aware resolvers and authority-only servers, > and I think that work is worth doing. > Also yup. This would require some experimentation to make sure that it works under most / all cases, and a better understanding of how widely deployed DNAME support is. There were some studies into DNAME support a while back, things have gotten better since then (I'd assume!). > I'd be very happy to work with Brian (assuming he's interested; I haven't > talked to him) and write this up as a second option. Great. We could: A: replace the current method outlined in draft-wkumari-dnsop-omniscient-as112-03 with DNAME. B: have two methods described in one draft or C: have two drafts, each describing an option. W > > > Joe > -- "I think it would be a good idea." - Mahatma Ghandi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
