Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis

[Tony Finch <[e-mail]>]

Andreas Gustafsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Here's my opinion:

Thanks :-)

> Section 9 of the draft should not refer to the requirements as
> "requirements for UPDATE clients", but something like "requirements for
> entities that update endpoint records in the reverse tree".  I would
> consider these entities to be on a higher layer of the protocol stack
> than the UPDATE protocol itself.  They may happen to use UPDATE as the
> lower-layer mechanism to effect the changes, but that does not make this
> a change to the UPDATE protocol, an update to RFC2136, or a requirement
> on UPDATE clients in general.

Hmm, I am reluctant to introduce new layering. Is there a precedent for
the distinction you are making?

> I would even say that the requirement to follow CNAME and DNAME
> redirections should apply equally when the updates are not performed
> using the RFC2136 UPDATE protocol at all, but using some other
> mechanism.

What deployed examples do you have in mind? Who here knows how Active
Directory interacts with DNS aliases?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[e-mail]>  http://dotat.at/
Shannon: Northwest 6 to gale 8 decreasing 4 or 5, becoming variable 3 later.
Very rough at first in southeast, otherwise moderate or rough. Showers.
Moderate or good.