Hi,
There haven't been as many replies as I'd have hoped for, but I think
there is slight preference towards rewording to not say much of
anything about DNAME, along the lines of:
<t>In particular one should note that the use of A6 records in
the forward tree or Bitlabels in the reverse tree is not recommended
<xref target="RFC3363"/>. Using DNAME records is not recommended in
the reverse tree in conjunction with A6 records; the document did not
mean to take a stance on any other use of DNAME records <xref
target="RFC3364"/>.</t>
Or do we have proposals for different kind of wording? If so, please
send it ASAP.
I think this captures what Rob Austein clarified (as author RFC3354).
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> I'm particularly interested in hearing what kind of opinions the WG
> has on this particular problem..
>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > Substantial (or not-so-editorial) comments:
> > >
> > > 1. Section 1.1 (1.1 Representing IPv6 Addresses in DNS Records)
> > >
> > > In particular one should note that the use of A6 records, DNAME
> > > records in the reverse tree, or Bitlabels in the reverse tree is not
> > > recommended [2].
> > >
> > > I think this is an overstatement about DNAME. The text looks meaning
> > > DNAME is not recommended *in any way* in the IPv6 reverse tree. For
> > > example, people would read this to mean it is discouraged to use DNAME
> > > to manage both ip6.arpa and ip6.int zones as described in
> > > http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2002-1.html
>
> Yes.
>
> > > But, in my understanding, the sense of the discussion in RFC3363 ([2])
> > > is that DNAME in the reverse tree is deprecated for the reverse side
> > > of the A6 usage. That is, the usage for constructing multi-level,
> > > hierarchal reverse trees, particularly with bitstring labels.
>
> Chaining was indeed one important argument in the discussions. I do
> not remember them in detail to be able to comment whether it was
> intentional to deprecate DNAME for all reverse usage or just with A6.
> IMHO, the document language:
>
> 4. DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree
>
> The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
> closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
> one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
> other isn't either.
>
> [split by me]
> Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
> the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
> tree be deprecated.
>
> The first part *seems* indicate that at least when writing the
> document, there was no justified use for DNAME in the reverse tree.
>
> However, this still does leave it open what's the case about
> non-fragmented, non-A6 reverses (the scenario which Jinmei said).
>
> And to that my feeling was that the implementation expense etc. of
> DNAME is not really worth it in the non-fragmented scenario, and that
> it might re-open problems we saw in A6 wrt. chaining.
>
> > We should just reissue RFC3363 with *all* references to DNAME
> > removed. It continually causes problems.
> [...]
>
> First, I think there should be consensus that DNAME is a good thing,
> and it's OK to use it everywhere. :)
>
>
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
