From pk at DENIC.DE Mon Jul 3 10:28:51 2006 From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:28:51 +0200 Subject: [dns-wg] List of DNS WG Action Items updated Message-ID: <20060703082851.GE18072@denics7.denic.de> Dear WG, with the meeting minutes for the DNS WG meeting at RIPE 52 now being final, the action item list at has been updated accordingly. Items 51.2 and 51.5 are now "done". -Peter From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Tue Jul 11 00:11:02 2006 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:11:02 -0400 Subject: [dns-wg] Re: [db-wg] Re: Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute In-Reply-To: <17536.28242.339798.978566@roam.psg.com> References: <20060601074456.GA16230@ripe.net> <447EDF0C.9080304@schiefner.de> <20060601131815.GG17136@ripe.net> <20060602.132247.35858695.he@uninett.no> <20060602122943.GA24500@ripe.net> <17536.28242.339798.978566@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <44B2D076.5080201@schiefner.de> Randy, all - Randy Bush wrote: >>> While I can agree that out of completeness it is good to have the >>> support for glue records in the software, I still wonder if >>> anyone has specifically asked for being able to name the name >>> servers for these delegation points within the delegated domain? >> Yes, this feature was explicitly requested. > > perhaps a clue record would be more appropriate? sorry for being a month late with my answer - that somehow dropped off my table... Wrt. [c|g]lue[ful|less] ENUM delegations: after all it was felt inappropriate to allow ENUM registries to only use certain types of delegation - less for pure technical reasons, but more for ENUM Tier 0/1 intrinsic non-technical reasons. Hope that clarifies the point. Best, Carsten