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]/
[dns-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [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
Fri May 26 09:51:33 CEST 2006
Doug, > 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. I agree. And not only for the consumers, but also for the repository itself (no need to *additionally* store the original textual input, but only a normalized internal representation). Whether the full form address is capitalized or not, I wouldn't mind at this stage. These comments applied originally only to the IPv6 glue of nservers, but as Jeroen pointed out, inet6num objects would benefit from the suggestion, too. Regards, Marcos
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [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 ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]