Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification fordraft-bellis-dns-recursive-discovery-00

2009-10-16 Thread George Barwood
Ray, I have read the draft, found no problems other than the missing security considerations ( I don't see any particular security considerations ), and fully support it. Did you consider a "referral" model using NS records? LOCAL.ARPA.9000NSA.LOCAL.ARPA. LOCAL.ARPA.9000NS

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

2009-10-16 Thread Chris Thompson
On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote: On Oct 16 2009, Chris Thompson wrote: On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote: Another point: The draft is speaking abut "DNAME _in_ the root". According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live' at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not at th

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

2009-10-16 Thread Alfred Hönes
On Oct 16 2009, Chris Thompson wrote: > On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote: > >> Another point: >> >> The draft is speaking abut "DNAME _in_ the root". >> >> According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live' >> at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not >> at the delegation point

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

2009-10-16 Thread Andrew Sullivan
A couple clarifying questions and remarks inline. On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:42:05AM +0800, YAO Jiankang wrote: > if we dname is used in the root, all dns administrator of the names below the > TLD should have the dname knowledge. Ah, so your worry is that, if we have example. and variantexamp

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

2009-10-16 Thread Chris Thompson
On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote: Another point: The draft is speaking abut "DNAME _in_ the root". According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live' at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not at the delegation point -- or did I miss something? Within each zone, there may be

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

2009-10-16 Thread Niall O'Reilly
Alfred � wrote: Another point: The draft is speaking abut "DNAME _in_ the root". According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live' at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not at the delegation point -- or did I miss something? Within each zone, there may be at most one DNAME RR,

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

2009-10-16 Thread Alfred Hönes
Another point: The draft is speaking abut "DNAME _in_ the root". According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live' at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not at the delegation point -- or did I miss something? Within each zone, there may be at most one DNAME RR, and if so, it mus

[DNSOP] draft-yao-dnsop-idntld-implementation-00 and DNAME

2009-10-16 Thread Alfred Hönes
Authors: I fear that Sections 3 ff. of draft-yao-dnsop-idntld-implementation-00 have entirely missed the evolution of the dnesext-rfc2672-dname draft. The "Understand DNAME" bit, and hence the dependence on EDNS has been removed in June, and it has been reinforced that support for DNAME does not