On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > The use of DNAME has always been *independent* of whether
> > > A6/AAAA or nibble/Bitlabels are in use. The choice to use
> > > DNAME is driven by neither of these. It will be driven by
> > > the need to shift a heirachy of zones without having to
> > > redelegate the entire heirachy.
> >
> > I think the current text:
> >
> > In particular one should note that the use of A6 records in the
> > forward tree or Bitlabels in the reverse tree is not recommended [2].
> > 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 [5].
> >
> > is good, because it clarifies the intent. Removing it would be worse.
> > Do you agree?
>
> No. You are doing the same thing RFC 3363 did. You are
> placing a restriction on DNAME that SHOULD NOT BE THERE.
> There is no reason to place any restriction on DNAME.
Read it again; it says:
Using DNAME records is not recommended in the reverse tree in
conjunction with A6 records;
(this is what RFC3363 meant to say about DNAME's, I was told)
the document did not mean to take a
stance on any other use of DNAME records [5].
(clarifies that RFC3363 didn't mean to restrict DNAME's in any other
way.)
Based on this, I do not think there is consensus to change this
at all.
--
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
