[dns-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute

Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 10:43 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Marcos Sanz/Denic wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>> In my experience this is a good place to apply the principle, "Be liberal in
>> what you accept, and conservative in what you send." It would be more
>> convenient to users if you accepted many different forms of IPv6 address,
>> and more convenient for consumers of the data if those addresses were
>> canonicalized into the full form of the address as in section 2.2.1 of RFC
>> 4291.
> 
> As RFC4291, 2.2.1 is not really a section,

I was using the same notation that Marcos had used. And yes, that was what I
was referring to.

> And thus when I submit "whois -h whois.ripe.net 2001:0db8:1234/64"
> it would return an inet6num with (the /48 exists, the /64 doesn't) :
> 
> 2001:db8:1234::/48
> 
> Is that what you meant?

No. I was referring specifically to the case at hand, IPv6 addresses used as
glue records. In my opinion, having the addresses always be canonicalized to
the full form (not the compressed form) is easier to deal with on a number
of levels, including db design, and inclusion in the DNS being the most
important.

> From my point of view, what I do is *always* rewrite the addresses
> to the compressd form and in lowercase (caps are to screamish ;)

I definitely agree with lowercasing the addresses.

hth,

Doug

-- 

	If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough