Andrew may have not made his point clear to the authors, but I think it is an
important one: you need to treat the two options the same if you want the DNS
community to take this document seriously. If this were just meant as an
Informational RFC that stated the way CNNIC was thinking, of
@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation
Andrew may have not made his point clear to the authors, but I think it is an
important one: you need to treat the two options the same if you want the DNS
community to take
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation
A couple clarifying questions and remarks inline.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:42:05AM +0800
On 16 Oct 2009, at 19:14, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
2.3. DNAME Apex not Redirected itself
Unlike a CNAME RR, a DNAME RR redirects DNS names subordinate to its
owner name; the owner name of a DNAME is not redirected itself. The
domain name that owns a DNAME record is allowed to have other
resource
Another point:
The draft is speaking abut DNAME _in_ the root.
According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live'
at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not
at the delegation point -- or did I miss something?
Within each zone, there may be at most one DNAME RR,
and if so, it must
Alfred � wrote:
Another point:
The draft is speaking abut DNAME _in_ the root.
According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live'
at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not
at the delegation point -- or did I miss something?
Within each zone, there may be at most one DNAME RR,
A couple clarifying questions and remarks inline.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:42:05AM +0800, YAO Jiankang wrote:
if we dname is used in the root, all dns administrator of the names below the
TLD should have the dname knowledge.
Ah, so your worry is that, if we have example. and
On Oct 16 2009, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote:
Another point:
The draft is speaking abut DNAME _in_ the root.
According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live'
at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not
at the delegation point -- or did I miss
On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote:
On Oct 16 2009, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote:
Another point:
The draft is speaking abut DNAME _in_ the root.
According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live'
at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not
at the
Dear all,
comments are welcome. thanks.
Yao Jiankang
CNNIC
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yao-dnsop-idntld-implementation-00.txt
Abstract
ICANN is pushing the IDN TLD into the root server. Some IDN TLD has
In message of239d6e1e.8748c878-on80257650.004a25fe-80257650.004b6...@nominet.o
rg.uk, ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk writes:
comments are welcome. thanks.
There are, in my opinion, two problems with the DNAME method that affect
the application layer that are rarely mentioned. Perhaps this is
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation
Dear colleagues,
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:22:53PM +0800, Yao Jiankang wrote:
Dear all
In message 4ad7fc8e.40...@nzrs.net.nz, Sebastian Castro writes:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Dear colleagues,
my reply to Andrew inline (I don't cover all points tho)
(3) is not, so far, an argument we have been hearing from the root
nameserver operators. But in
13 matches
Mail list logo
