> Mark,
>
>
> > "Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
> > DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363]."
> >
> > I object to recommending that DNAME's not be supported. RFC
> > 3363 does NOT say that. It says that they shouldn't be use
> > in the reverse tree for RENUMBERING purposes. Even then the
> > logic to get to that decision is DUBIOUS at best.
> >
> > If RFC 3363 was ever to be revised I would be pushing for the
> > entire section on DNAME to be removed. We really should not
> > be saying were in the DNS tree DNAME can be used.
> >
> > RFC 3363 most definitly does not recommend that DNAMES be not
> > supported.
>
> So, what should the document say? The Node Requirements doc shouldn't
> update RFC-3363, so that would be another issue.
It may however pay us to rev RFC-3363 just to remove the
offending section prior to getting out the node requirements.
> 3363 does say:
>
> The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
> closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
> one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
> other isn't either. Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
> the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
> tree be deprecated.
>
> How about:
>
> "Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6
> Resource Records [RFC-3363]. Usage of DNAME Reseource Records in
> the reverse tree is deprecated."
>
> John
Just don't mention DNAME at all. Note DNAME support will
be manditory with DNSSEC so the only issue is whether we
discourage the use under IP6.ARPA which I (and lots of others
in dnsext) now believe we got wrong.
"Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6
Resource Records [RFC-3363]."
Mark
> > I really suspect that we will want to use DNAME for renumbering
> > even without A6 and bit-string labels. Trying to get
> > multiple levels of delegation updated quickly is a pain.
> > Just look at the problems we are having going from IP6.INT
> > to IP6.ARPA. Do we want this pain level with every renumber
> > event.
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
