IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasing-requirements-00.txt

Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> Mon, 28 February 2011 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <alex@alex.org.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E05E3A6C27 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:45:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFlUtujylwYI for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.avalus.com (mail.avalus.com [89.16.176.221]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D273A6C13 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.15] (87-194-71-186.bethere.co.uk [87.194.71.186]) by mail.avalus.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B92FC56062; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:46:32 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:46:32 +0000
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Dan Schlitt <schlitt@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <E8CA84A3163505355F6D3ACF@Ximines.local>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.4.61.1102281223360.6967049@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <20110227191542.6824.qmail@joyce.lan> <335963D7-3440-45E6-843C-38F419462792@cisco.com> <Pine.SGI.4.61.1102281223360.6967049@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasing-requirements-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:45:35 -0000

--On 28 February 2011 12:40:55 -0500 Dan Schlitt <schlitt@world.std.com> 
wrote:

> Back when this discussion started a long time ago I thinkit was perhaps
> the first message that listed a number of possible approaches. One of
> them was a presentation layer in the DNS. The statement with this was
> that it had been rejected earlier and so need not be considered.
>
> As this long discussion has gone on with more problems than solutions I
> have often thought "now wouldn't that problem be better avoided with a
> presentation layer."

I believe every possibility (including doing nothing) has been
rejected at least once, so on that basis +1 to this being (re)considered
at least to the extent of being included in the draft as a possibility.

-- 
Alex Bligh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email