In message <4ad7fc8e.40...@nzrs.net.nz>, Sebastian Castro writes: > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > Dear colleagues, > > my reply to Andrew inline (I don't cover all points tho) > > > > > > > (3) is not, so far, an argument we have been hearing from the root > > nameserver operators. But in any case, this is a load and > > provisioning issue, and is not an argument that can properly be made > > about whether a given technology as such should be selected for a > > given purpose. It is rather a consideration that needs to be taken > > into account when someone makes a decision to support variant labels. > > It is an important operational consideration, and operational > > constraints have to be taken into account when making deployment > > decisions. That's an issue to be debated in the root server > > operators' fora, or at ICANN, but not here I think. > > I think it's a valid concern about the load at the root servers and > agree it doesn't correspond here to discuss it. If ICANN/root_operators > decide to implemente the IDN TLD variants by using DNAME, every query > for a name under the variant will go to the roots.
No they won't, only non-DNAME aware resolvers will go back to the roots. DNAME aware resolvers will perform the synthesis locally using the cached DNAME. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
