Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu> wrote: > Thanks for reading the draft!
> When I first read the last paragraph of section 8, I was confused by > "delegate the reverse DNS as usual" so I am hoping that it can be reworded > somehow. Yes, I can see that might be confusing. I think I meant any kind of delegation, at octet boundaries or classless, though if you put a DNAME at the apex of a classless zone you will have CNAME-to-DNAME or DNAME-to-DNAME chains which is brave. I'll think about this a bit more :-) > Also, I prefer the 'start-prefix' version of naming delegated zones, so I > was hoping that would be the main example, but it is your document, so you > get to choose your preference. I fully expect that will turn out to be the consensus since that is what RFC 2317 suggests in its charmingly roundabout manner :-) The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating non-CIDR delegations (though I forgot to mention that in the draft), but this might be considered a disadvantage by the more routing-minded. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Faeroes: Southwest 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 later. Rough or very rough. Rain in northwest. Good, occasionally poor in northwest. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
