Review of draft-ietf-idnabis-defs
vint at google.com
Mon Oct 26 15:30:30 CET 2009
another alternative would be for you to issue an informational RFC
about interpretation of IDNA 2008 in light of DYN DNS, would it not?
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > Uh, yes. If dynamic update is configured to require that an
> > RRSET (from the viewpoint of IDNA, a label) is already present,
> > then one has a lookup situation. If it is configured for the
> > "RRSET does not exist" or "Name not in use" cases, then one has
> > a registration situation. That said, my personal recommendation
> > would be to use the more conservative Registration rules any
> > time one is going to start modifying DNS zones rather than
> > simply looking something up. But the WG has not discussed this
> > topic. If people are convinced that something must be said on
> > the subject, we will need to have that discussion.
> I do think that something needs to be said about this, since
> the issue has come up in implementation. For example, based on
> the distinction above, a client handling a dynamic update on
> its own using TKEY would implement the lookup protocol,
> whereas a DHCP server handling a dynamic update on behalf of
> the client might implement the registration protocol.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update