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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:56:24 +0200,
Andreas Gustafsson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Can you point to specific wording that needs changing?
>
> Mainly, the "Updates: 2136", and each instance of "UPDATE client".
> For example, in the Introduction, you could change
>
>    While these methods interoperate well with DNS resolvers, they
>    require some care from dynamic DNS UPDATE clients that are trying to
>    change IN-ADDR.ARPA mappings.  The client needs to follow the CNAME
>    and/or DNAME redirections so that its UPDATE request changes the
>    canonical PTR record without disrupting the redirections.
>
> to something like
>
>    While these methods interoperate well with DNS resolvers, they
>    require some care from entities that update IN-ADDR.ARPA mappings,
>    such as DHCP servers and IP management systems.  These need to
>    follow the CNAME and/or DNAME redirections so that the update
>    changes the canonical PTR record without disrupting the redirections.

FWIW, this makes much more sense to me than "Updates: 2136".  I also
agree with this rationale:

At Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:36:53 +0200,
Andreas Gustafsson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The requirements in Section 9 should apply to entities like DHCP
> servers and IP management systems, whose functionality includes the
> management of reverse mappings, and that may contain, call upon, or
> (if we must use that term) "be" an UPDATE client to perform the
> changes.  But an entity that only serves as an UPDATE client, like
> the "nsupdate" program in the BIND distribution, should not be subject
> to the requirements because it does not deal specifically with reverse
> mappings, but with arbitrary DNS names and records.  Calling them
> "requirements on UPDATE clients" when they only apply to entities
> that are more than just UPDATE clients seems wrong to me.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya