[dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs

On 1 Dec 2010, at 20:27, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

> What I fail to see at 1st glance is where the RIR and the PDP comes  
> in?

What Chris is proposing is a different way of dealing with reverse  
lookups in the DNS. If the idea gets support, this could have  
implications for the NCC. The WG might decide "We like DNAMEs in the  
reverse tree. NCC please implement that in your bits of in-addr.arpa  
and ip6.arpa. Or make it an option. Here's the policy goop to support  
this request. Oh and maybe that policy goop could/should be hawked  
around the other RIRs too.".

And maybe this idea touches on DB if a DNAME object needs to be  
created to make the scheme fly for the reverse zones NCC manages. If  
that's the case, I expect there would need to be some policy done  
somewhere. A policy emerging from the DNS WG would be a novelty. :-)

Please note the extensive qualifiers with should and maybes. I was/am  
getting ahead of myself. The meta-logic here is if the idea has merit  
and if the WG supports it, a policy proposal might be needed so that  
the NCC could implement it. That's all.

I originally mentioned the idea of a policy proposal in the hope it  
would provoke a discussion and maybe wake up the WG. Well, we are  
having a discussion, but not about the DNAME idea. :-( At least, not  
yet... The time for invoking the PDP is some way off (if at all).  
Let's first establish if anyone in the WG cares about the idea. I'm  
disappointed there has been no reaction yet.