[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Chris Thompson wrote:

--- draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-17.xml    Wed Oct 21 16:17:14 2009
+++ draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-17a.xml    Wed Oct 21 16:19:51 2009
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@
    for the YXDOMAIN (value 6) RCODE.
    </t>
</section>
-<section title="DNAME Apex not Redirected itself">
+<section title="DNAME Owner Name not Redirected itself">
<t>
    Unlike a CNAME RR, a DNAME RR redirects DNS names subordinate to its
    owner name; the owner name of a DNAME is not redirected itself.


	+1


@@ -224,9 +224,10 @@
DNAME RRs are not allowed at the parent side of a delegation point but are allowed at a zone apex. 
</t><t>
-    There still is a need to have the customary SOA and NS
-    resource records at the zone apex.  This means that DNAME does not
-    mirror a zone completely, as it does not mirror the zone apex.
+    If a DNAME record is present at the zone apex, there is still a need
+    to have the customary SOA and NS resource records there as well. Such
+    a DNAME cannot be used to mirror a zone completely, as it does not
+    mirror the zone apex.
</t><t>
    These rules also allow DNAME records to be queried through RFC 1034
    <xref target="RFC1034" /> compliant, DNAME-unaware caches.



	+1,

	but I think the sentence before the Chris's proposed update
	is also a possible source of confusion.  I'm thinking of what
	text to send.

--	
Niall O'Reilly
University College Dublin IT Services