Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c
- Previous message (by thread): Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c
- Next message (by thread): Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Karrenberg
Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
Fri Nov 26 14:10:20 CET 1993
> Marten Terpstra <Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net> writes: > > In the past (Blasco has mentioned this before) we said to include the > zone-c of the parent zone, since he/she maintains the MX records. Sounds reasonable! > Looking at the number of syntax errors in > the database currently for domains, and the population, I would even > vote for (a) or (b), but this has been rejected by the dns-wg on > several occassions (on very good grounds). The question was and is > whether the domain objects give added information compared to what is > in the DNS. With 4.9 and the TXT and RP RRs I am not quite sure if > these grounds still hold ... Can the DNS WG please put this on the agenda again and provide a paper with a comparison of what can be put in the DNS versus what is in the database. Once that's done the DNS and db working groups can make a recommendation which is written up and can be referenced. Daniel A personal HFl-.02's worth: One positive aspect about domain objects in the database is that it gives TLD registrars a well defined format to keep their administration, at least a minimal version. The database then provides a way to make that available by another means than the DNS. I am convinced that if *all* TLD registrars kept at least this level of administration it would improve many a TLD registry. Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c
- Next message (by thread): Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]