Jinmei-san - responding to your meta-comment: My understanding is that this document is the response to a request from the IESG to describe the alternatives for DNS server configuration, without making any kind of recommendation or choice. The IESG will use the contents of the document in making a decision about whether to charter any additional work on DNS server configuration protocols in any WGs.
- Ralph
At 02:38 PM 6/22/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
(trying to resend from a different address which I guess the list management system expects)
I've also added a few more comments to the previous (undelivered) message. So if the original message is ever delivered, please just ignore it (and forgive me for the duplicate).
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:21:11 -0700, >>>>> David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Please review the document carefully, and send your > feedback to the list. Please also indicate whether or > not you believe that this document is ready to go to the > IESG. Note that this is a somewhat unusal case as the > IESG requested this document.
Comments are below.
In short, I don't think it's ready to be sent to the IESG. I agree this can be a useful document, but it still contains non trivial issues.
A meta comment (question):
This draft seems to adopt all the three approaches. Does this mean we gave up on choosing a single particular approach for this purpose, or even gave up on specifying one "default" approach? If so, then I guess implementors will need to implement all the approaches (if it needs implementation support) and/or operators will need to be familiar with all possible approaches. Is my understanding correct?
. dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
