Re: [db-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute

[Katie Petrusha katie@localhost]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:51:17AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for your input.

 From the delegation checker point of view, every pair "<name> <IP>" 
is treated as a separate entity, undergoing its own checks, hence my
preference for the syntax that reflects this.

However if anybody else has strong preferences for either variant of the
syntax, please let us know, so we could wrap this discussion up and 
send final proposal. 

> 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@localhost -- dr@localhost -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

-- 
Katie Petrusha
RIPE NCC