[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ZONE and VIEW options (Re: 49'th IETF DNSEXT agenda)
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> dropping ZONE from the doc would make it stronger, IMNSHO.
We have been discussing the possibility of doing just that. There's a
good chance at the IETF, I'm just going to say, "even though the ZONE
option is in there, it will be removed from the next revision."
> Server A
> view INT primary for .company
> view EXT primary for .company
>
> Server B
> view INT primary for .firm
> view EXT primary for .firm
>
> Server C
> view EXT secondary for .company
> view EXT secondary for .firm
> view INT secondary for .club
>
> a client trying to check that the EXT view of .firm was consistent would have
> to configure himself with two different names for the same view.
Actually, in that case, you wouldn't really need the VIEW option. Server
C, being a third-party server would be outside the network, would get the
EXT views by default.
Now, let's say that server C was internal to one of the other
networks. The way we plan to add the option into bind is that there will
be an option in the zone along the lines of "remove-view EXT;" so that
you'll not be required to have the views matching between servers. (Of
course, under a single administrative domain, having them be different
would be silly, but in the case you name, it make sense.)
> The third (naming scheme - wrote that one badly) is an issue that arose
> once where 2 implementations of a protocol interpreted a certain field -
> one could only enter ASCII, and the other was configured with a binary
> value as (unchangeable) default. (TSAPs in X.400, if anyone cares).
In honesty, I largely agree with this argument. We're willing to change
to either "any legal DNS label" or "any legal UTF-8 string" in a revision,
probably leaning toward the first.
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.