Review of draft-ietf-idnabis-defs

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Mon Oct 26 15:30:30 CET 2009


Bernard,

another alternative would be for you to issue an informational RFC  
about interpretation of IDNA 2008 in light of DYN DNS, would it not?

v

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...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091026/6181156a/attachment.htm 


More information about the Idna-update mailing list