Re: [dnsext] additional section processing for DNAME

[Andreas Gustafsson <[e-mail]>]

JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
> Okay, I'm glad to know it was not only me:-)

You may add me to the list of people who find the text confusing.
Actually, I would go further than that and say that the text is not
just confusing - it's simply wrong.

> > One of the issues in writing these updates (or alleged 
> > clarifications) I can mention from my experience in doing them is 
> > that the original text is so weak and thus interpreted so 
> > differently, someone will be unhappy.  The safest thing to do is 
> > retain as much of the original text and slap on some supports where 
> > we can "get away with it."  Perhaps this is a case of that.
> 
> Perhaps.  Right now I just wonder about the meaning rather than
> agreeing or disagreeing with anything.  Since the original text in
> question was (seemingly) intentionally updated, I'd at least like to
> know the intent of the update.

To me the update seems like an attempt to rationalize some text in the
original RFC that never made sense in the first place.

So, to summarize, I think the following text in the draft makes
no sense, serves no useful purpose, and should be deleted:

   The DNAME RR causes type NS additional section processing.  This
   refers to action at step 6 of the server algorithm outlined in
   section 3.2.

-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [e-mail]