RE: FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-04.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Since Juergen did not react to the "MUST" topic, I think we agree that
we want to change on page 10:
OLD:
            The DESCRIPTION clause of InetAddress objects that may have
            InetAddressDNS values must fully describe how (and when) such
            names are to be resolved to IP addresses.
NEW:
            The DESCRIPTION clause of InetAddress objects that may have
            InetAddressDNS values MUST fully describe how (and when) such
            names are to be resolved to IP addresses.

W.r.t. the discussion on queries for A or AAAA, I propose that juergen 
adds some explanatory text that includes his discussion/argumentation below.

Ted, will that address your concern?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de]
> Sent: dinsdag 25 mei 2004 22:40
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Ted Hardie (E-mail); Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-04.txt
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:17:54PM +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>  
> > Not sure I (yet) fully understand if such description
> > (or any text withing 3291bis) needs to speak about wether
> > a query for A or a AAAA is needed. 
> 
> Not sure what the question is. I see two questions:
> 
> a) Should there be text which says that different DNS records might
>    be queried to resolve the name?
> 
>    Personally, I do not think such a clarification is really 
> necessary 
>    since this is obvious in case your box does support multiple IP 
>    versions. But if people feel strongly that such a clarification is
>    necessary, I have no problem if such text gets added.
> 
> b) Should we require that DESCRIPTIONs spell out the order in which
>    you try to resolve names?
> 
>    I think this would actually be a bad idea since the order is not
>    really MIB object specific but resolver specific and something
>    that the operator might want to control (rather being hard wired
>    in the MIB objects). In other words, I would prefer to have
>    specific objects which allow to control and configure the order
>    in which a resolver does its job.
> 
> So what was the question? ;-)
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
>