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

[Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>]

> From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:54:18 +1100
> 
> DNAME's placement is the same as any ordinary resource record (e.g.  MX,
> TXT).  There is nothing special about where DNAME can or can't be used.

+1.

> This is perfectly legal.
> 
> xn--314159. NS ...some nameserver...
>             NS ...other namesevers...
> xn--217182. DNAME xn--314159.

legal, but unlikely.  rather, we'd see:

	XX.         NS ...some nameserver...
	            NS ...other namesevers...
	xn--217182. DNAME xn--314159.XX.

or:

	XX.         NS ...some nameserver...
	            NS ...other namesevers...
	xn--217182. DNAME XX.

that is, the existing NS would continue to be associated with an existing
CCTLD, and the DNAME will point to that or to some subdomain under that.