> On 19 Mar 2018, at 17:47, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > > Some folks had reservations about the current definition of "split DNS": > "Where a corporate network serves up partly or completely different DNS > inside and outside > its firewall. There are many possible variants on this; the basic point is > that the > correspondence between a given FQDN (fully qualified domain name) and a > given IPv4 address > is no longer universal and stable over long periods." > (Quoted from <xref target="RFC2775"/>, Section 3.8) > > What would the WG like for this definition?
The quoted definition seems wrong: the binding of a name to address isn't necessarily unstable in split DNS setups. And that's not the only game in town either: for instance MX and NS records. How about the following: Where a corporate network serves up partly or completely different DNS data inside and outside its network. There are many possible variants on this; the basic point is that the correspondence between a given QNAME/QTYPE/CLASS tuple and the data for that tuple is no longer universal and can depend on where the query is made from or which DNS server(s) are queried. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
