At Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:56:24 +0200, Andreas Gustafsson <g...@araneus.fi> wrote:
> > Can you point to specific wording that needs changing? > > Mainly, the "Updates: 2136", and each instance of "UPDATE client". > For example, in the Introduction, you could change > > While these methods interoperate well with DNS resolvers, they > require some care from dynamic DNS UPDATE clients that are trying to > change IN-ADDR.ARPA mappings. The client needs to follow the CNAME > and/or DNAME redirections so that its UPDATE request changes the > canonical PTR record without disrupting the redirections. > > to something like > > While these methods interoperate well with DNS resolvers, they > require some care from entities that update IN-ADDR.ARPA mappings, > such as DHCP servers and IP management systems. These need to > follow the CNAME and/or DNAME redirections so that the update > changes the canonical PTR record without disrupting the redirections. FWIW, this makes much more sense to me than "Updates: 2136". I also agree with this rationale: At Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:36:53 +0200, Andreas Gustafsson <g...@araneus.fi> wrote: > The requirements in Section 9 should apply to entities like DHCP > servers and IP management systems, whose functionality includes the > management of reverse mappings, and that may contain, call upon, or > (if we must use that term) "be" an UPDATE client to perform the > changes. But an entity that only serves as an UPDATE client, like > the "nsupdate" program in the BIND distribution, should not be subject > to the requirements because it does not deal specifically with reverse > mappings, but with arbitrary DNS names and records. Calling them > "requirements on UPDATE clients" when they only apply to entities > that are more than just UPDATE clients seems wrong to me. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
