Andreas Gustafsson <g...@araneus.fi> wrote: > > Here's my opinion:
Thanks :-) > Section 9 of the draft should not refer to the requirements as > "requirements for UPDATE clients", but something like "requirements for > entities that update endpoint records in the reverse tree". I would > consider these entities to be on a higher layer of the protocol stack > than the UPDATE protocol itself. They may happen to use UPDATE as the > lower-layer mechanism to effect the changes, but that does not make this > a change to the UPDATE protocol, an update to RFC2136, or a requirement > on UPDATE clients in general. Hmm, I am reluctant to introduce new layering. Is there a precedent for the distinction you are making? > I would even say that the requirement to follow CNAME and DNAME > redirections should apply equally when the updates are not performed > using the RFC2136 UPDATE protocol at all, but using some other > mechanism. What deployed examples do you have in mind? Who here knows how Active Directory interacts with DNS aliases? Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Shannon: Northwest 6 to gale 8 decreasing 4 or 5, becoming variable 3 later. Very rough at first in southeast, otherwise moderate or rough. Showers. Moderate or good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
