To:
=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg_Bauer/Denic?= <bauer@denic.de>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <James@Seng.cc>, <kent@songbird.com>, <patrick@gandi.net>
From:
"Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com>
Date:
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:58:03 -0500
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<OF252C5B4A.5226CC14-ONC12569EB.0033B85E@denic.de>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Antwort: RE: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]
| That´s exact the way we do it here in Germany. | We dont´t know anything about Nameserver Objects and i still can´t see it | as a requirement. As Patrick pointed out, one advantage to keeping separate NS objects is that if one needs to change the address of a given server, only one record needs to be updated (i.e. normalization). It would be interesting to know how often this is used.