RE: 2 points

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@zed.isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:11 PM
> To: shollenbeck@verisign.com
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: 2 points
> 
> 
> % [10] All registrars MUST be authorized to register objects 
> in the registry.
> 
> 	All <approved/authorized> registrars
> 
> % [11] The protocol MUST provide services to manage name 
> servers associated
> % with multiple domains.  No name server data SHOULD exist in 
> the registry
> % without an associated parent domain.
> 
> 	I'd loose the second sentence. 

Why?  The functional implication is that you can end up with A records in a
zone without NS records that refer to those A records.  I've been told that
this won't cause server software like BIND to choke, but it's not optimal.

<Scott/>