Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:25:24PM -0700, David MacQuigg wrote:
Also, I suspect the guardians of DNS at the IETF will be unhappy
that no changes were made to address their concerns.
Given that there have been extensive discussions with DNS folks
over the years, can you provide links to actual concerns that
they have voiced that continue to not be addressed and that you
think should be addressed?
A typical top record might look like this one for rr.com:
I could have sworn that the last few times this came up that
"ip4:1.2.3/24" was valid syntax. I now see that the phrasing "It is not
permitted to omit parts of the IP address instead of using CIDR
notations. That is, use 10.23.45.0/24 instead of 10.23.45." still means
that it's not completely clear whether or not "ip4:1.2.3/24" is valid.
I'm biased on saying that it should be valid, (I'll look into the
archives tonight), but either way, that wording should be clarified.
It's not the archives that make it invalid, it's the current draft and
the fact that all existent implementations would report a syntax error
if we suddenly start publishing mechanisms with the new syntax.
The bottom line is that the current syntax must not change.