Dear colleagues, On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:58:37PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Nonetheless since we are in the midst of IETF week, I'd like to ask whether > anyone has interest in talking about this sometime during the week. I think the draft is probably needed, because we already see two different underscore uses, and if people are going to continue to do that, it'd be nice if they did it the same way. I will note that I sort of hate the approach outlined in section 3 in the draft as written. In the current form, we have a table that either has a value in the subordinate field, _or_ a value in the RR field; in either case, the other field has to be NULL. If I put on my data geek hat, this sort of makes me queasy, on normal form grounds. Given the way different underscore uses have emerged, however, I have yet to come up with anything that would make this much simpler, and still actually cover the cases we have. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
