On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:35:22AM -0500, Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 104 lines which said:
> 2) Views. > > Views is a concept that a lot of folks like, but is a BINDism. Isn't there at least one other name server which implements a similar concept, may be with a different name? > Perhaps not everyone able to manage a zone can manage a view. I.e., > views may only be manageable per IP addresses on the host, as > opposed to being able to add another slave zone within a view. A possible approach, which would completely wipe out views from the requirments document, could be, for nameservers which do have the concept of view, to encode the view name in the identity of the requestor. Since the requestor must be authenticated, you could imagine that requestor "foo" would authenticate as "foo-view1" to manage view "view1" and as "foo-view2" to manage view "view-2". That way, view management would be completely outside of the protocol, which would trim it for the great joy of the people who like small and easy protocols. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
