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/[email protected]/
[db-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: Deprecation of ip6.int scheduled for 1 June 2006
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Fri Jun 2 10:51:17 CEST 2006
Dear Katie, On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:59:47AM +0200, Katie Petrusha wrote: > > What's the reason not to use one line per server and list all v4 an/or v6 > > addresses within that one line? > > 'One name per line' syntax seemed to be more clear and short... Hm, I disagree. I'd prefer a syntax like Peter proposes too. It's IMHO more logical to have one line per nameserver, and only list the glue addresses behind it. One nameserver, one line, with n (n >= 0) optional glue addresses. This would be logical and intuitive for me. All else needs more complicated parsing in mind and automated code. Sorry for the late comment, didn't have much time to follow discussions here lately. Feel free to ignore. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: Deprecation of ip6.int scheduled for 1 June 2006
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]