This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/
[dns-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marcos Sanz/Denic
sanz at denic.de
Wed May 24 15:27:59 CEST 2006
Katie, > [ipv4_address] is an IPv4 address of the name server > > [ipv6_address] is an IPv6 address of the name server It would be helpful to include details about the accepted syntax for these addresses. For instance: [ipv4_address] is an IPv4 address of the name server in dotted quad form [ipv6_address] is an IPv6 address of the name server in the preferred textual canonical form (Sect 2.2.1, RFC 4291) The IPv6 textual compressed form (Section 2.2.2, RFC 4291) is/is not accepted (cross as necessary). The IPv4/IPv6 textual mixed form (Section 2.2.3, RFC 4291) is/is not accepted (cross as necessary). > nserver: ns1.example.com 168.0.0.1 It would be better to use RFC 3330 documentation IP addresses, e.g. nserver: ns1.example.com 192.0.2.0 Best regards, Marcos P.S. Btw, if non-preferred IPv6 textual forms are accepted, will the output of e.g. whois deliver the original or the preferred form?
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]