Re: [dnsext] Re: DNAME-bis issues (was: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variant implementation)

[Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>]

> Date: 19 Oct 2009 19:36:22 +0100
> From: Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk>
> ...
> Alfred said essentially (I hope I am not misrepresenting him) "You can't
> use the second variant, because DNAMEs have to be at the zone apex. You
> have to delegate and then put the DNAME at the apex of the child zone."
> 
> My claim is that is not the intention of the draft, or (as the lawyers say)
> in the alternative that it is, it's grossly incompatible with RFC 2672.
> with deployed code, and with existing DNAME records.

+1.

> But if I am right in thinking that was not the intention of the draft,
> then the fact that it could be misinterpreted that way is fairly serious.

+1.