Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-missing-mname-00
On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:28, Antoin Verschuren wrote: Just a small nit I happened to notice in this draft. In section 3, there's an example SOA record where the dot representing the MNAME is printed behind the RNAME. Shouldn't the MNAME be before the RNAME ? So: @ 1800IN SOA jabley.automagic.org. . ( Should be: @ 1800IN SOA . jabley.automagic.org. ( ? Yes, you're right. I'd undertake to fix that and roll a -01, but last I heard (in Dublin) there was no consensus that the idea had legs, so I have dropped it. Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-missing-mname-00
Just a small nit I happened to notice in this draft. In section 3, there's an example SOA record where the dot representing the MNAME is printed behind the RNAME. Shouldn't the MNAME be before the RNAME ? So: @ 1800IN SOA jabley.automagic.org. . ( Should be: @ 1800IN SOA . jabley.automagic.org. ( ? Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525500 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W http://www.sidn.nl/ ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-missing-mname-00
> Is it then out of spec if we're working with a hidden/unreachable master > server, and even though it is disclosed in SOA.MNAME, it is not listed in > NS.NSDNAME ? What should one put in the SOA.MNAME in that case ? Any one > of the slaves ? Since an RFC 2136 initiator is only supposed to send updates to an NS.NSDNAME, and since the only spec'd use for SOA.MNAME is to select an NS.NSDNAME, any change we want existing clients to make, we'd make with changes in NS.NSDNAME, which would also affect normal operations (since these are used for delegation) which isn't desireable. I don't know a way to get out-of-spec clients to stop sending unwanted updates other than to point SOA.MNAME at a meaningless value like LOCALHOST in one's own local domain, and have that resolve to 127.0.0.1. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-missing-mname-00
(updated subject to reflect draft being discussed) Paul Vixie (vixie) writes: > i think that if LOCALHOST. could be made to return A 127.0.0.1 and ::1 > then we could use LOCALHOST. as a meaningless value for SOA.MNAME, I actually considered that option for a moment. > but that > would just be there to handle the case where RFC 2136 initiators were talking > to an SOA.MNAME that did not match any NS.NSDNAME, in which case they are > already out of spec and it's difficult to say how much effort should be spent > changing the spec further. Is it then out of spec if we're working with a hidden/unreachable master server, and even though it is disclosed in SOA.MNAME, it is not listed in NS.NSDNAME ? What should one put in the SOA.MNAME in that case ? Any one of the slaves ? Phil ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
