On 02/29/2012 04:30 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
Either way looks ok to me.
I agree that using a space may be less confusing if this syntax never
allows to specify multiple addresses.
If multiple address can be specified than it may be less ideal to use
spaces.
Simo.
idnsForwarders is multi-value attribute, so each value contain single
forwarder address.
Petr^2 Spacek
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 15:14 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
And there is the patch, sorry.
Petr^2
On 02/29/2012 03:10 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
Hello,
this patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/bind-dyndb-ldap/ticket/49 ,
but I want to discuss one (unimplemented) change:
I propose a change in (currently very strange) forwarders syntax.
Current syntax:
<IP>[.port]
examples:
1.2.3.4 (without optional port)
1.2.3.4.5553 (optional port 5553)
A::B (IPv6, without optional port)
A::B.5553
::FFFF:1.2.3.4 (6to4, without optional port)
::FFFF:1.2.3.4.5553 (6to4, with optional port 5553)
I find this syntax confusing, non-standard and not-typo-proof.
IMHO better choice is to follow BIND forwarders syntax:
<IP> [port ip_port] (port is string delimited with spaces)
(From: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#forwarders)
*Current syntax is not documented*, so probably is not used anywhere.
(And DNS server on non-standard port is probably useful only for testing
purposes, but it's another story.)
What is you opinion?
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
