Subject: Re: [dnsext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-dnsext-cname-dname-00

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:07:11 +1000

Mark Andrews writes:
> 
> In message <[email-masked]>, 
> Ma
> tthew Dempsky writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Mark Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > And if one is relaxing CNAME and other data rules then NS and SOA
> > > are also obvious candidates.
> > 
> > And DS?
> 
> No.  DS only co-exists with delegating NS's.  If it wasn't obvious
> that is NS and SOA at the apex of a zone.  CNAME at a delegation
> would not be visible.
> 
> The cache might see DS/NS/SOA/CNAME/DNAME all co-existing together
> but the authorative side would not under this regime.

	Make that DS/NS/SOA/CNAME/DNAME/DNSKEY/NSEC/KEY/SIG/RRSIG.
 
	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]