Marten Terpstra <Marten.Terpstra@ripe.net> writes:
In the past (Blasco has mentioned this before) we said to include the zone-c of the parent zone, since he/she maintains the MX records.
Sounds reasonable!
Looking at the number of syntax errors in the database currently for domains, and the population, I would even vote for (a) or (b), but this has been rejected by the dns-wg on several occassions (on very good grounds). The question was and is whether the domain objects give added information compared to what is in the DNS. With 4.9 and the TXT and RP RRs I am not quite sure if these grounds still hold ...
Can the DNS WG please put this on the agenda again and provide a paper with a comparison of what can be put in the DNS versus what is in the database. Once that's done the DNS and db working groups can make a recommendation which is written up and can be referenced. Daniel A personal HFl-.02's worth: One positive aspect about domain objects in the database is that it gives TLD registrars a well defined format to keep their administration, at least a minimal version. The database then provides a way to make that available by another means than the DNS. I am convinced that if *all* TLD registrars kept at least this level of administration it would improve many a TLD registry. Daniel