Subject: Re: DNAME and synthesized CNAMEs

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:42:27 -0400

From:  "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
To:  Bob Halley <[email-masked]>
Cc:  [email-masked], namedroppers <[email-masked]>
In-reply-to:  Your message of Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:55:55 PDT.
	                  <[email-masked]> 
Date:  Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:01:49 -0500

>...
>
>> Another approach would be to require that any DNSSEC-aware client must
>> also be DNAME-aware.
>
>That would of course be my favorite, if it can be so decreed.
>
>...

Isn't it getting to the point where we despreately need a road map?
Something like:

  	EDNS0
	    |              TSIG
          DNAME              |                             Etc.
          |    \            TKEY          DNSSEC   TSIG
        EDNS1   \             |                \or/
          |     DNSSEC       GSS-TKEY     DYNAMIC-UPDATE
  BINARY-LABEL

to indicate a general ordering of the drafts for
dependency/implementation?

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Jim Bound IPv6 Technical Leader UNIX Engineering Internet Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:08:52 -0400

>dependency/implementation?

I think we need this yes.

/jim