Jinmei-san,
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:19:07PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> 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's understanding of the charge from the IESG is
correct. In particular:
>> 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?
No, not correct (at the very least, the conclusion that
implementors will need to implement all approaches is
neither specified nor mandated by this draft). The draft
does not adopt any approach. Rather, it documents the
different proposals. The IESG will use this information
to determine how to move forward. The WGLC is being used
to determine if the analysis of the attributes of the
different approaches can be agreed upon (not which one
should be adopted). Does this help?
Dave
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
