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

[Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>]

Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>     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.

	The phrase, "parent side of a delegation point" seems to have
	been introduced without definition, even though the established
	term, "zone cut" seems equivalent.

	I suggest replacing

DNAME RRs are not allowed at the parent side of a delegation
point but are allowed at a zone apex.

	by

A DNAME RR is not allowed in conjunction with an NS record except
at the apex of a zone.

	or else

A DNAME RR may not have the same owner name as an NS record except
at the apex of a zone.

	IHTH

--
Niall O'Reilly
University College Dublin IT Services