On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > 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? > > I must be tired. See the thread starting here > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg01689.html > for this issue over in ipv6. Fighting this multiple times > is a pain.
Oh, your comment was confusing, as draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt does not include the comment you suggest. I have to disagree with your point. This is a document describing DNS operations issues. More details about DNS is a Good Thing. -- 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
