Re: [dd] [Ext] starting charter text for the DELEG BOF discussion

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

Certainly it could.

But equally, it could be constrained.

If the goal was to avoid conflicts then policy constraints can be applied,
but if the goal is to add variants then syntactically it should be possible
to do both.

My point wasn't "it must" - its that "it can". And, since the semantics and
syntax of a deleg record are still open we can either decide it's a design
constraint, or not.

G

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, 5:39 pm Geoff Huston, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm curious - why should a DELEG-like delegation referral point to
> precisely the same nameserver names as NS records? (if that is what you are
> saying here) What consideration motivates such a constraint?
>
> A zone can be served by multiple nameservers with distinct names, In
> theory couldn't DELEG be regarded as just more nameserver records?
>
> Another G
>
>
> > On 20 Mar 2024, at 5:17 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > A DELEG record shared over EPP or a functional equivalent should be
> capable of expressing the information in an NS record, obviating the need
> to say the same thing twice to your parent through a registrar.
> >
> > On the wire, some might argue for on the fly synthesis. But concrete
> instantiation simply shouldn't conflict.
> >
> > G
>
>