[dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs

hum... instead of dlegation-only, you could have a dname-only zone...  :)

certainly argues for less centralization ... 

--bill


On 1December2010Wednesday, at 12:57, Jim Reid wrote:

> 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.