North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: SORBS Contact

  • From: Matthew Sullivan
  • Date: Wed Aug 09 19:56:18 2006

I'll post this back to NANOG as others are likely to comment similar ways...

Michael J Wise wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:

This is also why I took the time to create:

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt>


Seems like it specifies a bit TOO much detail, but.
This is why it says that it is a suggestion and indicated that the level of detail you choose to use is upto you, however if you adopt some of the more specific detail you should use the less specific detail.

ie if you follow it you should as a minimum specify static/dynamic. If you want to add more detail like service type, that is your choice, but you shouldn't specify the service types (eg wifi) without specifying static/dynamic (does that make sense?).

Also it should be noted that it is a 'suggested naming scheme for generic records' and therefore not intended to be mandatory, further it says you should indicate the hostname of the machine in preference to generic records.

The idea being a common but extensible naming scheme for organisations want to specify generic/generated records rather than go to the hassle of creating individual records for each customer/host.

Regards,

Mat