FWIW I don't see any problem with having RRtypes for MAC addresses in the DNS. I am not an old DNS salt like many on this list, but seems there are many other RRtypes out there that have less interest. I see the reference to the IEEE "Guidelines for use of a ...EUI-48" but for the sake of equal billing to this "other lookup table" it might be nice to add a reference/link to the IEEE Registration authority for OUIs, e.g., http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/oui/public.html , in your references section.
-Rick -----Original Message----- From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:42 PM To: Edward Lewis Cc: IETF DNSOP WG Subject: Re: [DNSOP] fyi: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes as AD sponsored individual sumission... In message <cbe0fbce-b314-4c55-a889-d1d3056fb...@neustar.biz>, Edward Lewis writes: > I have no problem with this in spirit. But I always wonder why the > presentation formats, as in section 3.2 and 4.2, have MUST concerning > how the record is "written." I've never considered the presentation > format to be subject to a standard...I realize that's just my opinion, > but the on-the-wire format is what is subject to interoperability concerns. It's a MUST because master file format is a interchange standard. RFC 1034 The standard format of master files allows them to be exchanged between hosts (via FTP, mail, or some other mechanism); this facility is useful when an organization wants a domain, but doesn't want to support a name server. The organization can maintain the master files locally using a text editor, transfer them to a foreign host which runs a name server, and then arrange with the system administrator of the name server to get the files loaded. Mark > The document can have the MUSTs but I'd prefer SHOULDs. It's right > that there's only one way these addresses ever get written, so the > MUST seems logical, OTOH, it just seems over the top to demand it be > written one way or another. I certainly understand it is INTENDED to > be written as documented, but is it a sin if I implement something > else? (How would an alternate form hinder interoperability.) > > Apparently I am a little cranky today. > > On Apr 14, 2013, at 12:08, joel jaeggli wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes as AD sponsored > individual sumission... > > Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:55:52 -0700 > > From: joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > > To: dns...@ietf.org, dns...@ietf.org > > CC: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrty...@tools.ietf.org > > > > > > > > I've been asked to take this document on as AD sponsored individual > > submission. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-0 > > 2 > > > > If there's anyone who has strenuous objections to that, please let > > me > know. > > > > joel > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > DNSOP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > -=-= > - > Edward Lewis > NeuStar You can leave a voice message at > +1-571-434-5468 > > There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses. > > -- 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
