At 13:56 26-05-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Update to DNAME Redirection in the DNS'
<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-06-09. Exceptionally, comments
may be
I apologize for sending these comments after the end of the Last Call.
Quoting Section 4:
'Based on the experience gained in the meantime, [RFC3363] is revised,
dropping all constraints on having DNAME RRs in these zones. This
would greatly improve the manageability of the IPv6 reverse tree.
These changes are made explicit below.
In [RFC3363], the paragraph
"The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
other isn't either. Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
tree be deprecated."
is to be replaced with the word "DELETED".'
Is the intent to allow the use of DNAME RRs in the reverse tree? if
so, replacing the paragraph with the word "DELETED" does not make that clear.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf