Subject: [idn] change to requirements

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:36:54 -0600

I suppose that it wasn't seen necessary to mandate the obvious, but we
need to add the following to section 2.1 of the requirements document:

 [n] The service MUST ensure that all of the authoritative servers
     for a zone will answer an identical query with identical answers.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:18:21 -0800

>      for a zone will answer an identical query with identical answers.

I was under the impression that this working group was limited to 
enhancements to data representation, rather than having the task of 
specifying anything new or different about basic DNS protocol functionality.

The requirement you want to add is a basic feature of DNS already.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:25:05 +0100

>      for a zone will answer an identical query with identical answers.

[2] The service MUST preserve the basic concept and facilities of domain
names as described in RFC 1034. It MUST maintain a single, global,
universal, and consistent hierarchical namespace.

[5] The same name resolution request MUST generate the same response,
regardless of the location or localization settings in the resolver, in
the master server, and in any slave servers involved in the resolution
process.

I think it's hard to satisfy [2] and [5] without satisfying [n].

what debate did you encounter where the counterargument was made?

               Harald

---

From: YangWoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:11:19 +0900

Dear all,

> the master server, and in any slave servers involved in the resolution

Well, I agree with Dave Crocker's statement. We'd better not spend time
on whether we include existing & obvious DNS requirements in WG chater.

(This is out of IDN WG's scope)
But, now I happen to be curious about whether current DNS is compliant 
to [5]. Some content deliery networks are based on the assumption that 
resolvers will reply with nearest content servers to users. And some 
name services tweak (is it politically correct terms ?) DNS (or domain 
name related) requests to whatever they want.

Regards

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : [email-masked]
We Invent Enterprise Software Solutions
and Make You Secure & Powerful.
------------------------------------------------*/

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:45:05 -0600

> I think it's hard to satisfy [2] and [5] without satisfying [n].

To me, [5] read like a localization rule, not a data consistency rule. If
there is consensus that [2] and [5] combine to satisfy [n], then [n] is
not necessary.