Re: update of wcard submitted

[Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>]

Ed,

--On 25 October 2004 10:50 -0400 Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> wrote:

> I suppose it's debate over whether this is an strict update of 1034 or is
> an update on the concept of (1034:) wildcards.

You made it pretty clear in the draft you were NOT intending to update
(read: 'obselete') RFC 1034. If you were trying to do this, I think
the draft is too chatty etc. I proposed a pile of changes which I backed
out when I realized what you were trying to do (or thought I had).

What I *thought* you were trying to do was issue a clarifying document
detailing how wildcards should work in RFC1034. It is not designed
(as far as I can see) to be a change of protocol to 1034 (or only
the minimum change necessary to disambiguate it). Therefore I see
no reason which you shouldn't add DS etc. to the draft, and make
it clear for DNSSECbis etc.

If you were trying to update RFC1034, I'd think differently (i.e.
I'd drop the word update entirely and use the word "clarify").

Alex

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>