Subject: Re: DNAME and non-fragmented, non-A6 reverses [Re: [dnsop] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt]

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:07:09 +0300 (EEST)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > 	Lets be consistant w/ draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt.
> > > 	All references to DNAME were removed in the last draft there.
> > > 
> > > 	See Section 5.2
> > > 
> > >    Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
> > >    DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363].
> > 
> > I'm fine with saying DNAME support is not recommended.  But did I 
> > misunderstand you -- as this appears to exactly the opposite to what 
> > you've said in the past?
> 
> 	I must be tired.  See the thread starting here
> 	http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg01689.html
> 	for this issue over in ipv6.  Fighting this multiple times
> 	is a pain.

Oh, your comment was confusing, as 
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt does not include the comment 
you suggest.

I have to disagree with your point.  This is a document describing 
DNS operations issues.  More details about DNS is a Good Thing.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:36:28 +0900

>>>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:07:09 +0300 (EEST), 
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> said:

> draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt does not include the comment 

(Hmm, I've not seen responses from Mark in this thread, and this point
may have been clarified already, but) I guess Mark wanted to point out
he requested node-requirements-08 remove the part mentioning DNAME and
the main editor agreed with him (this is what happened in the thread
available at the above URL).

And, based on that agreement, he apparently wanted node-requirements
and dns-issues to be synchronized.

As I already said, however, I personally think the current proposed
wording for the dns-issues draft makes much more sense in that it
correctly reflects the sense of RFC3363.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html