Subject: Re: RFC2672bis DNAME update document

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:21:08 +1000

We also need to refute this section of RFC 3363.

4.  DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree

   The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
   closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
   one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
   other isn't either.  Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
   the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
   tree be deprecated.

	And this section of RFC 4294 which was supposed to have
	dropped all reference to DNAME.  I thought I had clobbered
	it but missed that it had not been removed when the next
	draft came out (months later).  See the thread starting:
	http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg01689.html

   Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
   DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363].

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

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