>>>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:07:09 +0300 (EEST), >>>>> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > > 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. (Hmm, I've not seen responses from Mark in this thread, and this point may have been clarified already, but) I guess Mark wanted to point out he requested node-requirements-08 remove the part mentioning DNAME and the main editor agreed with him (this is what happened in the thread available at the above URL). And, based on that agreement, he apparently wanted node-requirements and dns-issues to be synchronized. As I already said, however, I personally think the current proposed wording for the dns-issues draft makes much more sense in that it correctly reflects the sense of RFC3363. 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
