On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Mark Andrews wrote: > > 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. > > > Lets be consistant w/ draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt. > All references to DNAME were removed in the last draft there. > > See Section 5.2 > > Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and > DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363].
I'm fine with saying DNAME support is not recommended. But did I misunderstand you -- as this appears to exactly the opposite to what you've said in the past? -- 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
