In your previous mail you wrote:
Please see some remarks attached. I went into as a first time reader. My
global remark is that it tells me where the problems are rather than how to
solve them (subjective global feeling). When you compare with
Postel/Mokapetris texts, there are less real practical examples. I would
suggest to describe a configuration with all the possible cases and to use
it to document each point. I know it is complex but couldbe usefull.
Thank you.
jfc morfin
1.2 Independence of DNS Transport and DNS Records
DNS has been designed to present a single, globally unique name space
[6]. This property should be maintained, as described here and in
Section 1.3.
| the meaning of the word "global" differs in American and in English.
| the reference to RFC 2826 is inadequate. The reason why is that RFC 2826
| is for information, is ambiguous and over disputed. RFC 883 says the
| same thing better - even if contradicted by RFC 882 at the time.
=> your ideas (to be polite) about RFC 2826 / ICANN ICP-3 are irrelevant.
However, there is some debate whether the addresses in Additional
section could be selected or filtered using hints obtained from which
transport was being used; this has some obvious problems because in
many cases the transport protocol does not correlate with the
requests, and because a "bad" answer is in a way worse than no answer
at all (consider the case where the client is led to believe that a
name received in the additional record does not have any AAAA records
to begin with).
| this leads to accept a layer violation as a legitimate consideration.
| the DNS is about resolving 0-Z strings into IP adresses. External issues
| such as used protocols are orthogonal, except when a part of the
| query - like for mail services and "MX". Phrasing should underline this?
=> I strongly disagree: glue, additional section, etc, are necessary in
some contexts and have nearly always a real impact on performance: this
is *not* a layer violation and the issue is real.
Link-local addresses should never be published in DNS, because they
have only local (to the connected link) significance [8].
| "should" ? Should it not be possible to enforce this in writing codes
| voiding the concerned RRs if entered ?
=> this should be kept as an implementation choice. IMHO this is a bad
idea to blindly enforce this...
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
