>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:58:49 +0300 (EEST),
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
Personally, I'm fine with this wording. I think it reasonably
reflects the intention of RFC3363 (as Rob explained), and that's
enough for the dns-issues draft. (Whether DNAME itself is a good or
bad thing or whether RFC3363 should be revised on this is a separate
issue from this draft, IMO).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
