Moin!
On 8 Feb 2016, at 9:57, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
At this point, we're seeking more public comments - on this mailing
list (unless the chairs disapproves), on the our issue tracker [4] or
via email to the authors.
Thanks a lot for this work. I certainly would like dnsop to work on
this.
I would soften some of language and have a question.
5.1. There are use cases where the serial number rarely if ever is the
same on all servers and it's only really used inside communication for a
given domain and not during resolution. So the only people who know if a
divergent serial number is a problem are the domain owners. So we
shouldn't tell the public that this is a problem. I would say that a
different SOA serial number could be seen as an indicator of an
inconsistent setup, but that further analysis is required to really
conclude that.
6.2 The name servers SHOULD NOT belong to the same AS
I would drop that requirement altogether or make it a MAY. We really
should not tell people how to build networks from the DNS world.
8.7 We should point out here that neither an MX nor an A record are
required at the zone apex or do you want either of them mandatory?
On the SOA settings I do have a question. Would the following SOA be
legitimate according to this draft?
localhost. root.localhost. 1115106304 16384 2048 1048576 2560
If not why not, as my spot checking didn't find anything that made it
invalid.
So long
-Ralf
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
